FWIW, imitation is flattery -- enclose.horse is done, I left the daily game weeks ago after they started phoning in slop daily designs. This is a cheap move but it shouldn't make a difference to your audience.
794 karma · joined March 5, 2014
Most things in crypto aren't ever tested because the big players know they'd all lose if the faults were exploited.
Thank you, this actually makes some sense. It's disturbing to get these emails with zero explanation what's going on, and very frustrating that user community has to guess. But PHP vuln in a web client intercepting user logins is the only thing that makes sense, otherwise that would mean passwords in the clear or some other 1990s-era nonsense.
As in nothing functional at all? Or are there anonymous functions etc?
Then I upgraded OpenCode to 2.0 and pretty much all the bugs vanished. I still wish there was a happy medium between "parse tool calls for perms" (which fails all the time if the tool call is long/complex enough) and a full-on sandbox, but otherwise 2.0 is really solid.
"Cyber" at bigcos are paid to have a gigantic (and literal) fortress mentality where any change internal or external is a threat. As the saying goes, nobody in cyber ever gets fired for saying "no" to a change. As a bigco head you are basically paid to form an opinion.
A cyber head saying "ok this is a thing we'll have to defend against" is at a minimum routine if not purely CYA.
Why not both. Yudkowsky's social graph includes most of these folks.
I mean, people have been dreaming about this for decades. The whole reason UML was so overdesigned in the first place was in hopes that people could code by drawing boxes and lines. The full COBRA spec had software autonomously buying components in digital marketplaces and installing without human supervision.
It is funny to see engineers insisting that there's no way a machine could do this better. If anything, the surprise is that it took good old human language -- that second L in LLM -- to get the computer to sling code. The assumption was that a computer would just "speak code" like some kind of native tongue, but instead it just understands human language and associates that with code, and relies upon things like compilers and tests to see if it's right. Just like humans.
Predictably, now that it's actually happening, engineers are worried. As they should be, but I think it's a short-term worry. The job is changing, productivity is leaping, but its still a world where computers don't need to do stuff, humans do, so humans will be making it happen one way or another.
I agree that not every class of software or problem or this or that is going to be decimated/revolutionized whatever, but to not see any improvement since 2025 just sounds like you're not looking.
The reports of user-disconnected TVs jumping on open wifis or Amazon sidewalk by themselves are not credible. All of the problems stem from connecting the TV so don't.
I would be surprised if a truly dumb TV would be as good quality as modern LGs etc for the price. Maybe I'm wrong. But please don't pay _more_ for a dumb TV.
OpenAI has too much money, a common post-growth-stage issue that leads to pursuing a million stupid things with no clear plan. Like running a bunch of agents for months without any idea how to keep track of progress.
Vietnam (and Ukraine) would like a word
In a US context, with none of these kinds of arrangements in force, I do not accept arguments against much anything restricting worker's rights to organize here as there is so little alternative and even after organizing, true collective bargaining can be thwarted almost indefinitely (look at Amazon warehouse union efforts for examples of post-formation stonewalling).
In the German case or wherever there is a seat at the table for unions, a discussion can indeed be had. Here, I have zero sympathy for management which holds all the cards most of the time. Wikipedia in particular engaged a notorious anti-labor lawfirm to help their noble effort so I do not trust them in any way.
These are examples of workers leveraging their collective strength to do something that putatively a majority of workers support (modulo corruption/bad leadership of course). Shall I now give you the endless scroll of management doing all of the above and worse? Yes, union workers have a modicum of power to impact company operation, but it's not built-in to the concept of collective bargaining and indeed your Google example "attempted" to do something; management can simply do it.
> it’s not a stretch to imagine a union attempting to change Wiki policy to achieve political goals. Wikipedia is a public good and I would highly oppose this.
Wikipedia is not a "public" good. There is no mechanism preventing Wales and co taking it whatever direction they want.
> Co-ops are a better model for workers who want to join a company where they have full democratic control.
Co-ops are indeed great, but Wikipedia is not offering to become a co-op. You are arguing for "designated powers and limits" on one side only. If you're "pro-union" you have to accept that this grants powers to the collective, and if you start putting brakes on it without doing the same for management, it's anti-union.