For sure, which is ironic given it was the application GTK was created to support. But even so, I don't think I've ever really seen a GTK-based application I actually liked (the rest of the UI is going to have to make up for the atrocious file picking dialog, for example)
Yup, it can create a situation where you have a huge incentive towards workarounds and hacky fixes because doing it properly incurs huge costs. This is especially bad when a fundamentally quite bad design makes it through certification (most processes don't really prevent this).
If you are counting by bytes and including all sensory input, sure. In terms of amount of text, it's not close in the other direction. It's very difficult to make an apples to apples comparison here.
It does seem like they are much better in the small as opposed to the large. I agree on the judgement being questionable, and every report on making large swarms seems to suggest it's relying on spectacularly diminishing returns on the performance of a single agent, especially a single agent with a human in the loop.
Apart from the general difficulty of organising like this and actually evaluating the marginal revenue from an additional employee (it's hard enough to attribute to your existing employees!), this marginal revenue is likely to have diminishing returns as the company grows and from a risk management point of view you will want to have some margin so that you don't flip into losing money as soon as business slows a little.
The internet is a loose connection of people and organisations that is very difficult to coordinate. A lot of people do block these packets, which is why they're basically vestigial, but it's not something that's really worth spending co-ordination effort on when it's something that's easily implementable by those who want to and there still isn't universal support for things like standards that prevent BGP hijacking.
The facts will depend on each individual datacenter proposal. I'm not saying they all should be built or that none should be built, but that each one should be based on understanding of what each proposal entails that is grounded in reality as opposed to emotive broad-strokes generalisations that are either false in general or not necessarily true for every example, and ideally the tools available in the decision making process empower the former and not the latter.
Systems still take some effort to actually exploit. For example, the vast majority of bugs they found here are local privilege escalations, and most security people have long learned that user separation in the kernel is not a particularly strong security boundary. Network-exploitable vulnerabilities are a lot rarer, and it's noteworthy that there have been a few big ones discovered recently, but it's a much smaller number overall.
The heads of the big AI labs do seem to be pretty catastrophically bad at PR, I do agree. But this is hacker news, I thought we were meant to care about and look at the facts and not get swayed by the PR?
There can be multiple effects for a given action. The main objection I have to this argument is the idea that the only beneficiaries of any corporate decision are the shareholders.
I live near a sewage plant. One or two days a year when I am cycling past the fence on my commute, I might get a whiff of something. People really overestimate the problem.
The issue is not the intent of the rules, but the actual effect, which is 1) increasing the time and cost involved in building anything, and 2) abuse of those rules by bad-faith actors who wish to block or delay a development that would on average benefit the local community.
Because TCP/IP is used for more than just the internet. For pretty much all of these weird features someone is using them somewhere on their own networks. (And these things are frequently blocked on the internet or on firewalls).
This kind of thing is far better at locking down the average user than preventing competitors from reverse engineering what they're doing. (much like DRM is pretty good at stopping your average consumer from doing what they want with their media but pretty bad at stopping the pirates getting access to the same content).
It's definitely not all VPNs (typically the ones you pay for will buy their own hardware and internet connections in the places you can route your traffic through), but it is a common situation for the shadier (especially 'free') ones, and in that case it's usually not just a peer-to-peer thing, they make money by selling your connection to people who pay because they want a large pool of relatively reputable and disconnected IPs to send traffic through.
Generally not really. Residential proxies are services that can provide customers with the ability to send and receive traffic from a wide range of apparently legitimate networks (i.e. people's home internet connections). Almost always this is done without the informed consent of the person who owns the device that is used as a proxy, whether it be buried in some agreement somewhere or just outright malware.
The biggest danger is that said proxies can also allow access to internal networks, and as you might guess from how they are installed, are not usually operated by the most scrupulous of organizations.
>Washing clothes by machine is orders of magnitude cheaper than by hand when you factor in the value of your time.
I'll also note that it is less resource intensive overall. Handwashing dishes and clothes will use more water and more energy to heat that water compared to the machines that do the same job (people often assume the opposite).
I see a bit of a split in people in creative roles of all kinds (and this is something I had noted before LLMs made the contrast more stark). some people get into it because they like the process of making the thing that they are making (in whole or in part). Others get into it because they have a thing that they want to exist in the world but no-one else has made it (I would also split this into people who just want the thing, or people who want to make something that crosses many domains and so want custom things that will fit into the whole). The former group tend to react with revulsion to automation, because it removes the part they like (though it may depend on what part is automated: most people will find some part of their work necessary but tedious). The latter are usually much more willing to embrace it, because it's the end result that they care about moreso than the process.
That strongly depends on context. In larger organisations, this is definitely the case. For smaller startups and teams then the overhead is much smaller and the actual core programming work is much more of a bottleneck.
Their financial statements suggest the answer, even when you take into account the cost of training the model, is now 'not at all'. They are profitable, the main questions for their valuation are 1) can they keep their margins, 2) how big can they grow?, and 3) can this growth match what they have committed to?
Yeah, see, that's a specific comparison that does point to things getting worse (and I don't disagree with that), but the article doesn't mention inflation once. I really don't like this 'well it doesn't matter whether the claims and logic are right so long as the vibes are', because if the issue is real-terms wages falling because inflation is high then that suggests a different origin and set of possible solutions than wages falling because their share of GDP is falling. In fact it's probably more important to not muddy a real issue with a bunch of reporting that doesn't accurately reflect what's going on.
Can someone connect the dots for me between "share went down" being "despite GDP went up"? One of those is a percentage and the other is an absolute amount. I would not expect that they would be directly related in and of themselves (in fact I would suspect that that they would move more independently). I am all for the idea that there are harms to having a massive wealth inequality, but the numbers in the article do suggest that US workers are on average taking home more than they were before, even if 'capital' is benefitting more (where those workers are also still the majority beneficiary of those capital returns), and yet the article seems to just dance around this and report it as if those workers are worse off in absolute terms.
I think it's less of a concern over the internet because the kind of packet necessary for the exploit tends to be filtered out, but it's pretty scary as an escalation mechanism from e.g. an end-user device to a core server.
Much like with PHP2Shell, it doesn't need to be utterly trivially exploitable to be a big concern.