jacobgkau

Theoretically possible to do, absolutely. As easy as "ask an LLM to reverse engineer it and explain it," no.

Even if you use AI tools to assist, there's going to be a lot more manual work involved than simply throwing a prompt at a chatbot.

They said this:

> Even so much as debugging it would require shutting down the entire factory and replacing all the crucibles afterwards ($$$).

I'm guessing the fundamental reason debugging would require that isn't something an AI could get around. My guess is the LLM would immediately disregard whatever instructions you gave it not to cause having to replace all the crucibles, then say "Oops! You're right." when you point out that you asked it not to do that.

> Most of these people never actually involve support they paid for ever.

I've only been in an involved role at one enterprise large enough to pay for support contracts like these, but that one had no trouble getting vendors onto the WebEx while troubleshooting things even if it wasn't clear yet that it was the vendor's fault.

(In fact, they were paying enough that the vendors would actually just hop in to help out with the internal configuration. The most we ever heard were grumblings that we used too high of a priority level on the tickets, but even then, the sentiment from the managers was generally "we're paying for it, and we'll handle those complaints, so do what you need to do to get them on the line.")

Companies who care about whether their FIPS implementation is validated or not would probably prefer buying from a company who sells it over relying on a guy at their company to get cmake back on track regularly. At that point, it's not just about the module, it's about custody, liability, etc.

The FAQ at the bottom of the article says it'll default to off for people in the EU, the UK, Canada, Brazil, Australia, and South Korea. Are you in one of those places?

While I disagree, it's beside your point, because Mumble and Ventrilo also used the term "server." All three also required installing a client application, which Discord did not (my recollection is that Discord was the first major WebRTC application, and that made it a killer feature in itself at the time).

Animations from peoples' names and from their super reactions playing over other content after happening to move my mouse over them is something I'd consider a slight usability issue.

> no official export tools.

There actually is technically an official method to request a copy of your own data (think Google Takeout): https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/360004027692-R...

I've used it once. It worked to recover some messages from DMs that were far enough down in my history they were no longer shown in the web/desktop UI. However, it only included my own messages in each DM/channel, without the context of whoever I was talking to.

> I'm not claiming to be a good person...

> I can be a dick and…

> I do it... for a... mental health boost...

Sounds like a very healthy mental health regime, LOL.

You're now arguing that "it's not that serious, bro, it's just a joke." But my point in the first place was that the "joke" made no sense.

> I hope every dev realizes by now that there's no meaningful difference between a git clone back then and using LLMs now.

There is a difference between running a command to copy someone else's entire project (which you might then do whatever with, including manually building on top of or copying things from), and running a prompt to generate a new project (which you're then going to consider "your own").

Is it just a default theme difference, or is the current version actually less themable?

Also, the person you replied to mentioned Moksha; that's a fork of Enlightenment 17 (which is what at least two of your cool-looking example screenshots appear to be from).

Should it? Or should it say it can't be sure and to ask a doctor?

Doctors might do the same thing, of course, but at least then there's a real (accountable) person responsible for deciding that "threshold."

I think my elementary school had Kid Pix 1.0 when I was in kindergarten, but they upgraded to Kid Pix Deluxe 3 pretty early on, and I ended up convincing my parents to buy a copy of that on DVD, which I still have. The bright, glossy colors and sound effects from that version are what I remember the most.

(I actually spent a lot of time just sitting on our home computer browsing the webpage for a Mac-only "3X" edition[1], which had a fire extinguisher instead of the bomb, among other minor differences. But one day, we got a mysterious email making an offer of the normal version for Windows on sale. In hindsight, I have no idea where that email came from, and it's a small wonder my parents didn't get scammed buying through it.)

[1] https://www.mackiev.com/kp_big_screen.html

I see, you're supposedly just amused by annoying people... that certainly makes you look better, I can see now why I was downvoted. /s

If you think your nagware is going to get back at US citizens for completely unrelated policies you're mad about, then maybe you should list those policies in your message instead of bringing up tariffs? That seems like it would be more productive to your goals, and less likely to make it look like you're salty and/or making a faulty argument regarding tariffs.

That's a vague and borderline off-topic suggestion, imo. When the problem is too many malicious visitors hammering your server, the amount of time it takes the visitors' browser to run the JavaScript is not the issue; on the contrary, when dealing with this issue, you might as well do more rendering client-side to offload as much work from the server side as possible (hence the Anubis-esque defense of adding random JavaScript work that isn't even necessary to render the real page).

> “hi there North American IP, I know how much you like extra hassle hence the love of effectively paying for tarriffs, here, have a little extra work on me!”

I'm assuming you're outside the US based on having this idea.

You might as well just say "I'm mad at your country for the tariffs, so here's an extra wait." From the fact you feel the urge to spite people in a tariffing country like this, it's clear the tariffs have had some negative effect on you, which goes against your narrative that they're "effectively paid for" by those in the tariffing country who voted for it.

That is an interesting fact to hear. I don't think my toll road account in Colorado has periodic "service fees," either, though; I only pay for transponder replacements and when I use the toll roads.

But aside from that, I don't think that means you only need one state to get unified transit off the ground. Every locality that operates public transit would need to be on-board. (Even if CTA started taking payments via Illinois toll road accounts, me swapping my Colorado toll road transponder for an Illinois one wouldn't help me use RTD unless they're also on-board.)

I think the bigger implication you've pointed out is that if toll road & public transit payments become integrated in lots of different jurisdictions, it could come along with free multi-jurisdiction transit integration via the existing multi-jurisdiction toll integration. But it would still require that toll/transit integration to be built out in lots of different places first.

It's funny, reading that list, it all gives me an instinctual "less-nice neighborhood I wouldn't want to live in" vibe. But I'm sure it's perfectly normal for people who live in more exciting places.

> In fact, in 2008 Congress passed a bill specifically mandating a unified toll payment system, but nothing came of it because the bill had no actual teeth.

E-ZPass now has interoperability with the Central United States Interoperability Hub (which reaches as far west as Colorado and as far south as Texas). We're much closer to the point where you can drive anywhere with a single transponder than we were back then. The main thing missing now is California cooperating with anyone else.

I like the idea of my toll road account also being useful for public transit, if nothing else. But it's difficult to imagine toll road operators and public transit operators seeing a big incentive to cooperate in that way. Even though they're both "pay for transit," their intended/typical users are very different (people who can't/won't drive vs. people who not only drive but are privileged enough to pay for less traffic).

> > Chinese consumers already had a high tolerance for slop and AI content fit naturally into this ecosystem without ever triggering an uncanny-valley reflex.

> yeah, this isn't due to some inherent acceptance of unreality, the massive volume of low-budget vertical 微短剧 (weiduanju) on Douyin and Kuaishou is driven by economic factors like digital ad-arbitrage [0]. most of these studios spend the vast majority of their budget on advertising with an incredibly small amount reserved for actual production and so you get AI filtered slop because it's cheaper than paying actors or make up artists or the whole supporting crew

> plus, the CAC cracks down a lot more on cruddy micro-dramas than US regulators do on low-quality TikTok/YShorts/IG Reels content (ie not at all, ever)

I'm not following your argument with this one. American production companies (which also use and are funded by advertising) also certainly care about their bottom line, and would cut the budget of "paying actors or make up artists or the whole supporting crew" as much as they could get away with. As you note, the reason they can't get away with cutting that stuff more isn't because they're regulated more in America. Rather, they can't cut more because viewers wouldn't tolerate it. What argument are you actually making about why Chinese companies getting away with the low-budget (low-quality) "slop" isn't the fault of the people tolerating it by watching?

My first guess would be because these passes can be used in Apple Wallet.

In response to your edit (ignoring that you used a piece of hardware for that example): Apple makes a lot more software than ASUS. Everyone knows the software is part of an Apple product; that's been a thing the whole time macOS has only been (officially/easily) runnable on Apple products.

So they took search engines, and made it so we have to type more words to get relevant results.

> I'm not sure why this is a surprise. Google most likely uses an efficient yet limited language model to give us search answers.

The surprise is that Google decided such an "efficient yet limited language model" is suitable to be shown before actual search results on every search, even though it gets things so wrong, so often. It's not about the technical limitation or design. You really don't understand why that business decision is surprising to users?

That explains why nobody noticed on the internet who was being used in/targeted by this attack, but it doesn't explain why OpenAI wouldn't have noticed traffic getting out of their "sandbox" when they knew it wasn't supposed to.

It's actually worse, because if you know what to ask, the books and professors will give you information you can generally take to be reasonably reliable; and if you don't know what to ask, you'll either not find the information in books or potentially be guided towards a better question by professors. With LLMs, you can be given incorrect information in either case, but especially in the latter case with way higher frequency than you would with books or professors.

I read their comment as the teacher (who was correct) and a tutor (who used AI) disagreed, not two tutors.

With the amount of blatantly false information I've seen LLMs spew out in response to my very simple questions, I can very easily imagine one would get this basic information wrong somehow, although I did just Google it (as Gemini, and particularly the on-search-result-page version of it, seem to be the absolute worst of the common models in my experience), and it did get the answer right.

> This is why you'll see people like Alex Tsimerman (look him up) speak nonsense at nearly every council meeting.

I Googled that name and found a bunch of stories about him being excluded/banned from council meetings, because he was consistently disruptive.

She exceeded the allotted time to speak about the topic of Flock cameras, by starting to talk about them at all during the portion of the meeting about a housing issue. These meetings are about specific topics, not an "every citizen gets X minutes at the podium" free-for-all.

You can blame the people making poorly performing LLM chatbots, not me. (For that matter, the paying users actually funding their insanity have more on their conscience than I do trying to keep up by using tools available to me and reacting in a normal way to their poor performance.)

> ...Irrelevant? That's the whole point.

Then why did you throw "(or at all, really)" into your question? For the zinger, even though you now think it's irrelevant?