There are just as many people who seem to think that all taxes are inherently harmful for any possible use case and nothing will convince them otherwise. I would honestly expect fintech to have more of this group than the one you describe.
I mean, sure, that's not wrong, but at that point, why are you letting the random person's app send and receive WhatsApp messages on your behalf at all? I'm pretty sure you'd need to give it network access, at which point being in a VM isn't going to protect your data from getting exfiltrated.
I just tried this out now with an email from my personal domain that I have configured to send via my gmail account. I got a 10/10, but DMARC does not seem to be required for this. It shows a yellow checkbox for me on this, the same as it shows for me not having an unsubscribe button, which hardly gives the impression of it being necessary, given that I would not expect an unsubscribe button to make sense for most people manually sending emails to their customers from corporate email accounts.
What? How does it prove it's a differentiator for someone who wants to be a spammer, which is what the comment you replied to made a claim about? As far as I can tell, it's evidence (not proof) that Microsoft thinks that they will reduce spam by requiring it, which in turn is circumstantial evidence (definitely not proof) that spammers might have to spend some amount of effort to start using DMARC. I don't understand how you can conclude that it would be onerous for them to do so indefinitely; it seems equally plausible that they might have just not bothered to do it before now but will be able to start doing it without much cost.
Hot take, but given how bash scripting has always been kind of an awful experience, with a myriad of footguns to protect against and lots of magic syntax to memorize, I can't imagine why I'd ever write a non-trivial shell script by hand nowadays. Yes, I'd read over it and clean up the obvious cruft, and I'd of course run shellcheck on it (and force the LLM to fix any issues without adding exceptions), but at this point writing shell scripts at all requires more patience than I can muster.
Locally, I don't even run a bash-compatible shell as my default anymore because it's just too annoying. I can tolerate writing nushell scripts with much more patience than I ever was able to even in the days I would tinker with my zsh config daily.
Interesting, I apparently skimmed the "Link to your phone" section too quickly (and I guess have a different sense of what that phrase implies than the author of that README, since a "link" that no longer requires the other end to exist anymore doesn't really seem like a link at all).
This is an app that connects to your phone and sends messages via the app. I don't think it's that crazy to decide that running on a VM or remote desktop is out of scope.
There have definitely been times when I've cloned repos that were vibed, pointed my own agent at it, and then hacked up whatever changes I've wanted. I don't think there's been a single time that a lack of prompts has caused any issues, but there have been at least a few times where stuff like AGENTS.md checked into the repo has caused hiccups from them encoding stuff that conflicts with how I want things done.
As an additional data point, I recently vibed an egui wrapper around a library I wrote for mod management for a game, and testing it out now, it idles at 92 MB. This implies to me that at least half of the overhead is probably not from the gui framework, but I also don't know how much effort they spent trying to optimize it; I didn't try to optimize my vibed GUI app at all, but I did hand-write the library that it uses for file management, state tracking, etc., and I tend to go out of my way to try to avoid unnecessary allocation in my Rust code. I don't know how much of the memory usage is essentially required overhead or from other dependencies for non-GUI parts of the app, but my instinct is that there's probably a bit of optimization that can be done. I don't think it's crazy for them not to have spent the effort on trying to do that yet though (or potentially even at all, if it's efficient enough for their own personal use).
No clue if it's possible or not. I was not able to find any way to do it when I last checked around a year ago, but maybe something has changed since then, or maybe it just isn't implemented in Firefox yet.
They can still unintentionally be funny sometimes though, especially certain quirky models. Mimo 2.6 Flash is my favorite in this regard because it will become absolutely unhinged in ecstasy when proposing an idea before even trying to verify if it's correct or see if there's a better one. Probably my favorite sequence from an LLM ever was watching Mimo try to diagnose a bug and coming up with a series of theories that it introduced as "NEW IDEA!!!", "ANOTHER IDEA!!!", "BETTER IDEA!!!", "EVEN BETTER IDEA!!!", "BEST IDEA!!!", and then "ANOTHER BEST IDEA!!!". It's been months and when someone is listing ideas I'll think of the phrase "another best idea" and need to stop myself from laughing.
There are licenses that require attribution without being copyleft though. I'm not saying the Asahi developers are wrong to use copyleft, but it's weird to me to mention "without attribution" as a sticking point when there are fairly standard permissive licenses that require attribution like Apache and BSD.
I certainly would never have the guts to do something like that, but on the other hand, I think people like that are very valuable for anyone who actually cares about real feedback. Evidently in this case (and probably in most cases) that doesn't include the executives, but as someone who doesn't have a lot of confidence in his ability to notice changing headwinds in a large company until there are very visible effects, his sacrifice probably would have been a much-needed wakeup call for me if I were still there.
If your goal is to convince people that you're right, describing things as "time wasted on navel-gazing" is not the type of thing that will win people over. It comes across as arrogant and entitled, as if the world would be better if everyone would just recognize you're smarter and therefore should do whatever you want.
If you're just pissed and trying to blow off steam, maybe this choice of words will help a bit, but because of the issues described above, it also might just cause a bunch of people to react negatively towards you and therefore make your mood worse.
If you're just commenting here as something to reference in the future for when you expect to say "I told you so!" to everyone, I guess this is a reasonable way of doing it. It still doesn't really seem like there's much need for phrasing it like that though; people still might look back and think that you're right but still sound arrogant and entitled.
I heard from a former coworker that someone who predated both of us at the company (i.e. had been there over a decade) got fired after asking for clarification about a very obvious contradiction between two (presumably AI written) slides from a new executive at an all-hands meeting.
Push-to-talk does not work well on in the browser at least on Wayland/Linux. The shortcut only gets sent to the active window, which for the type of contexts where push-to-talk is useful (e.g. gaming) is a dealbreaker. I've read stuff indicating that xdotool can manually handle things reasonably enough on X11, but I was never able to get it working reliably for any of the various Wayland replacements for xdotool, so when I've done voice calls, I've had to grudgingly use the desktop client.
I do think the risk of memory unsafety is vastly different in Rust and C++, and it's confusing to me that this is up for debate. Even a novice Rust programmer can easily avoid ever using the unsafe parts of the language by just not typing the word "unsafe", and it's very straightforward to configure things so that any use of them in your own code is rejected. On the other hand, in practice even proficient C/C++ programmers still will write code that ends up with memory safety issues; there were two new CVEs published for use after free in Chrome just yesterday.
Yes, there can be compiler bugs that cause unsafety in safe Rust code, and it's possible to have unsafety in dependencies that leads to issues in code that otherwise looks safe, but this can happen in C++ as well. My point is that the risk of having memory unsafety from bugs that you write in your own Rust code is effectively zero if you don't ever use the unsafe keyword, and this is how most Rust code is written in practice. Most C++ code is not written in a way that produces anywhere close to this level of confidence because the language fundamentally does not support anything like that. I don't think that contracts would fundamentally change this.
I don't find this particularly convincing as a fundamental change in how social pressure in communities works. I grew up in a suburb (around 25,000 people), and social pressure didn't need social media to cause real-world consequences; a priest at a church got reassigned and later quit being a priest altogether because of a rumor that he had an affair with a married woman, which in reality never happened and was a rumor started by the husband with no actual evidence. No one discussed any of this publicly at any point, and yet everyone knew that the priest was well-liked at first, and then everyone knew that he was reviled right after he got reassigned, and then everyone knew that everyone felt bad for him when the truth finally came out.
I'm not saying that social media can't bleed into real life, but I think the effects it has on how communities choose to ostracize people is completely exaggerated here. Your high-level theory for how it could result in a huge societal shift might be plausible, but it would also be plausible to argue that it causes people to move on much more quickly from events like this because it's so much easier for a new one to pop up for everyone to focus on, which leads to people no longer caring about the previous one faster. All of this is is just armchair philosophizing though, without any real evidence.
I think there are very real problems caused by excessive social media that are documented with compelling evidence, but I have trouble believing this is one of them.
You're making a pretty huge logical leap about what I "embrace" or am "happy with" based on my disagreement about whether social media is singularly responsible for what you're describing as a massive societal shift.
I'm pretty sure that societies have had social pressure for not interacting with people who society frowns upon as long as there have been societies. If anything, the "affairs of the state" that handle a lot of this nowadays developed because of the social pressure, not the other way around. Social media didn't somehow invent the idea of societies shunning people that are not deemed acceptable, although it did probably make it more visible.
> But I am not conflating anything. You just claim that C is unsafe and any issue we see is obviously evidence for this
That is explicitly not what I'm claiming. You seem to think that I think "memory safety" is equivalent to "safety", which is what I've repeatedly told you is not what I'm saying. That's conflation. It's not clear why you'd expect me to read more details you give after repeatedly ignoring what I'm saying and putting words in my mouth that I'm not saying, so I have to assume at this point you're posturing for other readers rather than actually trying to communicate with me in any reasonable way.
In practice, pretty much every C/C++ codebase in existence has ended up having memory safety issues, even very widely used ones with a lot of scrutiny over the years.
> while Rust code in practice is also far from perfectly safe and also introduces new supply chain risks.
You're conflating "does not have one notoriously dangerous type of safety issue" and "does not have any safety issues", which is a disingenuous characterization of what I said. You were the one who introduced the comparison to memory safety in Rust and C++, and now you're moving the goalposts as an attempt to rebut my disagreement.
For reasons I still don't understand, a lot of engineering-minded people seem to think the law is trying to be math and doing a bad job at it, when as far as I'm able to understand, it's actually just very much not trying to be math by design. I have no legal training of any sort, so it certainly doesn't require any sort of specialized knowledge to understand this, just having humility and being open-minded enough to recognize that my own expertise is not necessarily relevant to understanding how a system designed for an entirely different domain works.
This is like responding to someone saying that someone can die from an getting shot accidentally by a gun by saying you can also die from drinking too much water. Both of them are technically true and do happen on occasion, but one of them is not nearly as much of a risk in most circumstances, whereas the other is pretty much inherent to the most basic way of using it.
Quite a lot of the law is "semantic definitions" in the sense you're using the term. Things like intent and external circumstances are pretty typical for legal systems to take into account. If you're looking for the law to be mathematically pure, then this might be a problem, but if you're looking for the law to be flexible enough to handle real-world circumstances while still having some enforcement power that can be agreed upon, this is a feature, not a bug.