Phemist

A new instruction by the user will be appended at the end if it done in the same conversation. Thus only has influence on the cacheability of the original agent prompt, but not of subsequent tool calls.

https://www.nayuki.io/page/creating-a-qr-code-step-by-step

This is an interactive guide that will break down the process for your specific QR-code.

In the basis we seem to agree. Note that I am not trying to discourage helmet wearing (nor for governments to do it), just arguing against making it mandatory or even officially advised (for healthy adults) to wear them. Actual cycling safety is in numbers, more than in individually taken measures. This is all discussed in way more depth on reddit btw [0].

> but as a simple thought exercise on your argument

I realize could have written the sentence you respond to better, I should have written "and [mandatory helmet wearing] reduces perceived safety", also I said "should" in the sentence preceding the one you quoted, but I should've said that the NL ones ARE against making helmets mandatory for exactly the reasons I specify (and that my opinion is that other rights' organizations SHOULD be against it). Quoted directly from tbe website of the, quite well-regarded and not off their rocker, Fietsersbond [1] (under the header "Veilig gevoel?", translated by kagi):

    The Fietsersbond (Cyclists' Union) isn't against wearing a bike helmet. If you feel confident, you cycle more safely. It can be wise to wear a helmet in high-risk situations, for example, for seniors on e-bikes. Unfortunately, it has been proven multiple times that forcing people to wear a helmet actually backfires. People start cycling less.
    A helmet mandate makes cycling feel more like a dangerous activity—something you should be afraid of. Getting around by bike also becomes more complicated. After all, what do you do with that helmet when you're not wearing it? And what happens if you forget the helmet or if it gets stolen? These are all factors—whether justified or not—that make choosing a bike less convenient.

I wanted to react to your car/seatbelt point, but I realize now you are the same person arguing about what constitutes starting points in the sibling thread. I don't mean to spread FUD and I also disagree that this is indeed FUD. I'm sorry that Austria is not as nice a place for cyclists as you would like it to be. I hope with this oil crisis you will find a way to foment some change re the emancipation of cyclists in your locality or even country.

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/ut5fcx/why_is_thi...

[1] https://www.fietsersbond.nl/helmplicht/

This is btw also why cyclist's rights organizations (e.g. fietsersbond in NL) should be _against_ mandatory use of helmets. Helmets make it less convenient to cycle and reduces perceived safety, in turn reducing the amount of cyclists and as a result _actually_ making cycling less safe (and the vicious circle ensues).

Even only suggesting that it would be beneficial to use a helmet has this effect apparently, hence the organizations are only willing to state that they are "not against the use of helmets".

Just an interesting second order effect I think. You want to always be careful to optimize for the absolute number of safe rides, and not solely for the relative number of safe rides that might significantly reduce the absolute number of safe rides.

This could serve as the blueprint I guess, skip to the part about the 70s and 80s protests. Collective and popular protests helped by an oil crisis, recognizing vested interests in other modes of transportation (cars) that might want to work against your efforts.

Why does Skoda, a car manufacturer, care so much about interactions between cyclists and pedestrians? As you say, a bell that penetrates the car enclosures would be much more useful. I suspect a similar reason why pro-safety helmet lobby groups in NL received a lot of funding from these same car manufacturers. I digress..

For your information, post-WWII infrastructure developments in NL were initially highly car-friendly. This only started to change in the 70s and 80s, when the government started to actually create bicycle-related traffic policy, after collective protests (e.g. popular pro-bicycle protest songs were written, children refused to go to schools unless bicycle paths were laid, etc.) also helped by the oil crisis of the time.

So, no it can't be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed in reasonable time (and not an unspecified amount of decades, political capital and funding). We are even living through a repeated history right now.

That is an unfortunate, probably experimental?, traffic design choice...

The OP seemed to suggest that people wearing ANC headgear should stop doing so, but both the bell and the ANC-wearing pedestrians are a non-issue in my lived experience.

It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.

In the Netherlands, bicycle utopia, I cannot remember the last time I used my bell to alert a pedestrian of my existence. Granted, I never cycle in Amsterdam, but that is a special location where high-powered ship horns are probably required.

Regarding ANC, I naturally turn it off while cycling on my Bose Quiet Comfort II, as the ANC will try (and fail) to cancel the noise from the wind. I don't think this is a solved problem? So for bicycle-to-bicycle alerting, this also seems overkill.

apfel -o json "Translate to German: apple" | jq .content

Bringing it back to the dark forest of idea space, it is an interesting question whether the the space of feasibly executable ideas being small (as this essay assumes) is inherently true, or more of a function of our inability to navigate/travel it very well.

If the former, then yes it probably is/will be a dark forest. If the latter, then I would think the jury is still out.

https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-published-a-hit-piece-on...

The OPs blog post also reeks of a similar style to the hit piece.

Given the large delay between the initial report and further responses by the user `feld`, I wonder if an OpenClaw agent was given free reign to try to clear up outstanding issues in some project, including handling the communication with the project maintainers?

Maybe I am getting too paranoid..

It was also nice to read how FOSS thinking has developed under the deluge of low-cost, auto-generated PRs. Feels like quite a reasonable and measured response, which people already seem to link to as a case study for their own AI/Agent policy.

I have little hope that the specific agent will remember this interaction, but hopefully it and others will bump into this same interaction again and re-learn the lessons..

> Exfiltration patterns I'm missing

I was wondering about these entropy-based approaches. If I can make the AI agent run arbitrary python code, and I have access to the secrets, then I can make an infinite amount of encoders that have low "local" entropy, but would still be decodable into your secret. A few examples:

- Take 16 random words longer than `N` characters, encode each 4-bit nibble of the secret into this encoding. The output can be [in order, the 16-word dictionary][word1 word2 word3 word4... wordX]

- Repeat each character of a password N times, separate by spaces, e.g. password `hunter1` becomes `hhhhhhhh uuuuuuuu nnnnnnn ttttttt eeeeeee rrrrrrr 1111111`.

Potentially the LLM might even be able to do these encodings without a script.

Besides the regular network-level blocking, and some simple regex to catch most properly formatted API keys and other credentials, is this worth protecting against? Considering also the more complex the exfiltration patterns to filter for, the higher the amount of false positives.