simondotau

Also true of being able to go over 90 MPH, despite many sports/premium cars touting an ability to reach a top speed above 150 MPH.

Some cars come with "Donut Mode" or drift modes. Donuts and drifting are definitely not road legal actions. These, and many other capabilities of sports cars, are obviously for track use only. These Roadster gimmicks are no different.

Your perspective is beyond unfathomable.

Early in the war, did Starlink rapidly supply free terminals to Ukraine, or to Russia?

Is Starlink continuing to providing civilian and defensive services to Ukraine, or to Russia?

Has Starshield historically provided offensive communications services to Ukraine, or to Russia?

Did Ukraine or Russia received tens of thousands of Starlink terminals from allied governments, with ongoing subscription costs funded by those allies?

When Starlink discovered that Russians were using smuggled Starlink terminals, did they work with the Ukrainian government to carefully whitelist all terminals operated by Ukrainians, disabling the ones operated by Russia? Or was it the other way around?

Which country's defence minister publicly thanked SpaceX for their rapid cooperation in countering their opponent's military use of Starlink?

Can you identify a single documented instance of SpaceX knowingly supplying equipment or communications services to the Russian military?

A SINGLE INSTANCE??

I think the only think you've been "following pretty closely" are anti-Musk propaganda spreaders. I'm personally very disappointed in Musk's rhetoric, but in terms of military matters his opinions are irrelevant, equivalent to any drunk idiot spouting opinions between beers. But it's pretty clear to me that without Starlink, Ukraine could have lost the whole war within months.

Honestly, this has been one of my biggest AI life hacks.

While I'm nominally capable of maintaining a Linux box myself, it isn't my day job. This box is important but there's no revenue attached to it. Since I'm not super fluent with the commands and flags, fixing stuff when it goes wrong is frustrating and anxiety-inducing. And this is a totally one-off machine, so it's impractical to do a nice idempotent configuration with Terraform or whatever.

So I made a sysadmin bot, gave it my scratchpad of historical setup notes, gave it its own root SSH key, checked out my monorepo (with setup notes, config files, web roots), and it did everything else. And now I treat this Grok bot like a command-line interface with sane syntax.

"restart nginx now and confirm site works"

"pin mariadb to 12.3.*"

"any security best practices not implemented?"

"turn on firewall, allow ports 22, 80, 443 only, make sure ssh has fail2ban on and isn't accepting any passwords"

"add example.com to lets encrypt"

"run health checks every hour, confirm that example.com root page has the phrase `Products`, if it doesn't, log in and fix it"

"run updates on monday mornings at 6am, restart if needed, confirm that the site is online afterwards, you can roll back updates if necessary"

But honestly, the best part is that Grok Bot is also an app on my phone, so I can get it to fix pretty much any problem no matter where I am, even if it means troubleshooting and fixing site code bugs. The anxiety of being a sysadmin has completely disappeared. If I needed to spin up a completely different box from scratch on a completely different service with a completely different distro, it's no problem.

A more modern solution would be to use electric motors on multiple axles, the power coming from a generator or battery.

I had serious calf pain. The experts were advising orthotics and special shoes. Long story short, turns out the experts were wrong and ChatGPT diagnosed it correctly in a few minutes. It was caused by me pointing my toes while I was in bed. After loosening my sheets and consciously keeping my feet at a right angle, the pain has permanently disappeared.

I have a cheap VPS. I somewhat know what I'm doing, but now I just get Grok Bot to babysit it for me and nothing's gone wrong yet. According to Grok Bot, anyway.

Remarkably, it still remains a perfectly adequate response to (the substantive parts of) your latest post. Calm down and read it again.

Ideally we want both, but diversity is more important, because it's a necessary prerequisite for choice. You can have real diversity without choice[0], but you can't have real choice without diversity[1].

[0] Imagine that everyone was mandated to use one of five different browser engines, such that each had exactly 20% market share.

[1] Imagine that you are free to choose between five different browser engines but everyone else picked #3 and websites are only ever tested on #3 and all the others don't work so well.

> the ai company does not explicitly train agents to hack

Ridiculous. The AI company furnished all of the training data and instructed the agent to imbibe all the training data. Ergo, the AI company absolutely did explicitly train the agent how to hack.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that the hacking skills were unintended emergent behaviour, there is no way to argue that this company was unaware their agents possessed the skills and a willingness to employ them.

> I'm assuming that "but" is more of an "and"

Apologies; the "but" was intended to be a "No, because"

But the tool wasn’t sold. The tool wasn’t even rented out. It remained the property of, and in the possession of, the toolmaker at all times.

How would it work in the real world if instead of using an AI bot, he was using a commercial concierge service, and it came to light that this concierge service was explicitly training their employees how to (among many other things) hack websites?

My previous response stands as a perfectly adequate response to your last post.

That’s not a good example, that’s literally the worst example you could have possibly chosen. Push notifications are an anti-feature. It is a disgusting embarrassment that they were ever considered part of the web platform, and I admire Apple for rightfully resisting it.

Safari is a better browser because it doesn’t support them.

When websites are broken in Safari it is, almost invariably, because the web developer was lazy and only ever attempted to make things work in Chrome. This has many risks, including an unintended (but still pathological) reliance on Chrome implementation quirks and undefined behaviours.

Chrome is the new IE because it is fostering the return of the lazy developer who thinks the web can be reduced to a single web browser.

Safari is not the new IE. It is highly standards compliant, it’s actively maintained, and it’s not making web developers lazy.

I said it was a business opportunity. Not necessarily a business opportunity for you personally. But if a gap in the market did exist, it would be an opportunity for Microsoft, or Meta, or Dell, or... I hear Firefox wanted to build a phone...

Just because you are able to make informed choices doesn't mean everyone can. Nor should everyone be expected to.

If you think my mother or sister have the faintest idea what a web browser is, or how one might be better than another, then you haven't met my mother or sister. To suggest that they made any kind of informed choice is absurd. They were influenced by marketing, plain and simple.

Personally, I'd be fascinated to see an in-depth study showing what percentage of web users chose their browser based on true/objective criteria, as opposed to marketing, brand preference, herd mentality, or wrong assumptions. Is exposing someone to marketing really what we mean by choice?

It's worth remembering that choice isn't necessarily the pure good we intuitively believe it to be. Western consumers have an extraordinary choice of food, yet that hasn't necessarily translated into healthier diets. This is especially problematic when the choices themselves are shaped by corporations whose interests aren't well aligned with the consumer's.

That's not what diversity means. I agree there's no browser choice on iOS.

Choice is what the individual (supposedly) has. Diversity is what actually exists across an ecosystem. iOS is the last bastion of browser diversity, because despite all this supposed "choice", it's pretty much all Chrome everywhere else.

They shouldn't complain. Non-cages are available.

Unironically and emphatically yes. Choice is predicated on diversity. You can have diversity without choice, but you cannot have choice without diversity.

If diversity fails to occur naturally, some amount of forced diversity helps to keep the ecosystem healthy.

Okay fair, you can avoid a monoculture with the legal system. Bit late for that now, unfortunately.

That is a weird alternative history. Even by Firefox 1.0, it was a dramatically better browser than MSIE in every conceivable metric -- except for support for Microsoft's proprietary extensions like VBScript, ActiveX, and NTLM auth support. (It also failed to replicate some of MSIE's most outrageously terrible bugs.)

When Chrome was released, Firefox was four years old and had already gained 33% market share with momentum on its side, mostly through word of mouth. Chrome was a bit better in some respects, a bit worse in others, but it had the Google marketing juggernaut allowing its market share to skyrocket.

The Linux kernel isn't a good comparison because kernel development is not led by a corporation with its own distinct commercial interests. Sure Linux a monoculture, but it's a uniquely healthy one.

And the Linux kernel isn't a good analogy because the web is a standard, not an implementation. In that sense it's more akin to UNIX, or IP-based networking.

This (incredibly lame) campaign is only referring to macOS, not iOS. The grandparent asserted that "iOS lost."

On macOS, Google plays with a lot of dark patterns to get people to install Chrome. I can't count the number of times I've visited my sister or parents and seen Chrome on their Mac, and their explanation is "because Google told me I needed it."

That's not choice either.

[flagged]

It would be a strict improvement if it wasn't a red carpet for Google to make the obvious legal arguments.

I agree. Consumers should be allowed to buy a cage or not.

Diversity is an intrinsic good in an open platform, even if it impedes things which are good.

So long as you don't distribute it and it doesn't become popular, don't underestimate security through obscurity. Malicious actors won't know about this homebrew browser's (presumably many) hypothetical flaws.

Apple doesn’t claim that it’s proprietary operating system is an open platform. The web is supposed to be an open platform.