bthrn

Common sense suggests that living creatures are likely not boiling when they have a mild fever.

For use cases like this, how is the LLM different from a Google search?

I once watched a Vice President at an all hands explain that the company's decision to have non-competitive wages was because "it's not that we're underpaying, it's that everybody else is overpaying. If you want to go somewhere else to get overpaid, that's not going to last." I think about that every now and again and chuckle.

Diff is Phabricator terminology. A diff is roughly equivalent to a Pull Request in GitHub.

This guy burgles

The most profitable way to fill a plane would be to knock everybody out and just pile them up in the fuselage.

There is a 90 day decision timeframe starting from the time of submitting a complaint.

But note: > Due to a high volume of complaints, there will be a delay between when a complaint is submitted and waits in the queue and when the complaint process will start.

wat

That process remains tied to an employer, which is the very point that was originally made.

Many employers simply won’t do that paperwork by policy and treat that process as no different than sponsorship.

Property taxes and insurance go up pretty much every year.

It's funny how employers try to rationalize this -- take Coinbase, for example: https://www.coinbase.com/blog/how-coinbase-is-embracing-ai-i...

> While some worry AI will dehumanize the hiring process, we believe the opposite. Deploying AI will enable more quality interactions, more quickly for the candidates who are the best fit for our jobs– without unnecessary administrative tasks or distractions. We fully believe in AI’s ability to build depth and breadth in our selection process, while acknowledging that the road ahead will have its challenges. Let’s face it: the candidates who want to work at Coinbase are as enthusiastic about AI as we are. They, like us, are optimistic about the future of this (and all) technology.

It's not really a vulnerability, though. It's an attack vector.

Anchoring

Why does it matter either way?

At work I coined the phrase "Fast & Furious Planning" to describe teams that plan only a quarter at a time (without regard for longer term thinking).

> Also, if you factor in that cash is an option

Lots of places stopped taking cash. In many places my only option is to pay with a card.

The difference is, Microsoft has a robust and sensible testing and rollout model.

The goal here is to submit what appears to be a sequence of innocuous changes, none of which on their own are “obvious” vulnerabilities. The truth is, we don’t know what the strategic depths of this actor are. It may be years before we know whether an attack is successful.

For example — and this is just hypothetical - the author may have found that some consumer of this codebase uses it in a script, and consumes console output in some form. By modifying its output to behave differently, they may be able to influence the consumer’s execution in some clever way so as to create other conditions necessary for additional exploitation.

Or - the PR could have just been a test to gauge the scrutiny of the approvers.

For some reason I read this and then think of Arnold saying, “it’s not a toomah!”

It's usually accurate, but I've had planes changed on me a couple times. For example, there could be a delay that results in it being used for a different flight, and you end up with something else. Or if the plane you're supposed to fly has mechanical issues.

" Kagi does not log and associate searches with an account."

> Am I supposed to believe that if their backend crashes after a user query, that can’t tell what has been queried?

I'm sure they'll know the query. They just won't know which user made the query.

I have a watch that would be considered expensive by most. It’s not really about telling the time - I simply appreciate the complexity and beauty of handcrafted mechanical watches.

People spend years learning how to build them. It takes a long time to assemble one. They’re precisely made with small parts made of precious metals which are themselves expensive.

With companies like A Lange & Sohne, each watchmaker can only make about 6 watches per year. At a pace like that you’re not really paying for the watch, you’re paying for their labor and expertise. You’re paying to preserve the craft. You can’t make 6 of something in a year and sell it for $100 if it’s how you make a living.

> Fwiw I'd (very loosely) classify the points you're bringing under "prestige".

If I'd like my clothes made and sourced ethically, or if I want to support a local business that makes leather goods rather than buying mass-produced ones from somewhere else -- I wouldn't say those scenarios are motivated by prestige, but by valuing people and the work they do. It's a bit unfortunate that some things like that are considered a luxury these days.

It really depends what you mean by “optimal cost” and “better value”. For example, if you want something that’s handcrafted rather than made in a factory on the other side of the world, you have to pay for the skills and labor that go into that. Depending on what it is, it might not last longer - but could be a better value in other respects than simply cost. Not everything has to be about making widgets for the lowest amount of money possible.

…such as deferring how old people are when they are first given cell phones?

The first amendment only applies to state actors. I’m not sure why it’s so frequently used broadly as a blanket for free speech in any context.

As annoying as this is, I was mildly amused at the irony that this article itself has ads shoved between paragraphs.

The point stands - if everything is fine, as many banks seem to be saying, their intervention would not be necessary.

“I’m so confident that X is solvent that I’m giving X a bunch of money, for solvency” seems a bit odd to me.

If everything is fine, why would any of this be necessary?

The author is French. I'd be curious to see if you could write something in a second language well enough such that the only criticism a native speaker had was your use of a technically valid, but uncommon word.

The claim is that this $16,200 monthly cost was cheaper than the alternative. So it's not entirely silly to include rent in this figure.