Maybe the board and shareholders of big companies need to be held accountable financially instead of being able to hide behind legal constructs.

That system has been invented already. It’s called civil law.

Considering the current president, it's going great! /s

Not every internet thread needs to be injected with your TDS.

Not just financially. When a corporation fucks up big time there needs to be actual jail time for executives - fines will just be passed on to the company (read regular schmuck employees).

People need to start voting in politicians who will meaningfully punish corporations who don't.

So not sure where you are from, but over here both main parties and almost all press and TV would viciously push back (and actually are trying to do it right now with another party).

The reason for it is very simple: big companies bribe politicians and.... buy ads in media.

More importantly people need to start voting out politicians who refuse to. It's easy to elect people because of things they promise, but its what they actually do that matters.

We already do vote out parties when they do unpopular stuff. And then vote them back in to vote out the other party when they also does unpopular stuff. This isn't a solution.

Voting isn't enough when all the options to vote for won't do anything about this.

I think we’ll start seeing consulting agencies advertise how many vulnerabilities that can resolve per million token, and engineering teams feeling pressure to merge this generated code.

We’ll also see more token heavy services like dependabot, sonar cube, etc that specialize in providing security related PR Reviews and codebase audits.

This is one of the spaces where a small team could build something that quickly pulls great ARR numbers.

The same vertical-specialist logic applies in legal tech. Law firms are drowning in contract review — NDA, MSAs, leases — and generic AI gives them vague answers with no accountability. The teams winning there aren't building 'AI for lawyers', they're building AI that cites every answer to a specific clause and pins professional liability to the output. That's a very different product than a chatbot.

What is needed there are custom harnesses that don’t let the LLM decide what to do when. Use their power of pattern matching on data, not on decision transcriptions.

Does SonarCube use LLMs these days? It always seemed like a bloated, Goodhart's law inviting, waste of time, so hearing that doesn't surprise me at all.

Nah. They care about profits only, the sooner the better, so everyone can cash out and move to their next “venture”

I don’t think ”caring about profits” applies to any company 2026?

The problem is that they don't "need" to. There's no consequences for not caring, and no incentive to care.

We need laws and a competent government to force these companies to care by levying significant fines or jail time for executives depending on severity. Not fines like 0.00002 cents per exposed customers, existential fines like 1% of annual revinue for each exposed customer. If you fuck up bad enough, your company burns to the ground and your CEO goes to jail type consequences.

This kind of response went out of fashion after Enron. Burning an entire company to the ground (in that case Arthur Andersen) and putting thousands out of work because of the misdeeds of a few - even if they were due to companywide culture problems - turned out to be disproportionate, wasteful, and cruel.

the answer to that is a functional social safety net for the innocent employees to land in, not allowing companies to violate the law with impunity.

You’re describing a system where taxpayers foot the bill for data breaches.

That's exactly backwards. In the current regime, it's precisely the billions of people who are affected by data breaches (and who happen to be taxpayers!) who are footing the bill.

Not at all. Make the guilty corporation pay for all of it.

We already are in a system where we foot most of the consequences.

First off, adults use capital letters. I know it’s hard but it’s a basic part of our language. I would respect you and your arguments more if you used them. Second, your idea is as naive as your writing is poor. The issue with AA was that accounting doesn’t provide a lot of bounce and recover space for people whose firms go belly up in the way that AA did. A social safety net has precisely zero to do with the loss of a lot of dreams.

If you read more you’d know that (and you would use capitals).

and I might respect your opinions if they weren't couched in vapid complaints over the formatting of casual online intercourse. nobody with an argument of substance starts off with a complaint on the casing of someone's statement.

if true, your claim of the inability of the financial worker sector to absorb masses of workers dumped from a company going under due to fraud committed by the company sounds like exactly something that a social safety net would assist with, giving the workers a larger space to safely transition from one position to another.

an emotional appeal to insist on allowing a company engaged in criminal acts to persist because it might have a negative impact on those working for it isn't logical. if the company valued its employees, it shouldn't have engaged in fraud and been folded under as it deserved.

This. Severe harsh consequences are the best way to prevent crime.

If we also make the penalty for every crime the death penalty we'll have no more crime. Very simple solution no one has thought of.

If the government wants me to take copyright and IP laws seriously, then they need to take my personal information seriously too.

Yes, it makes sense as both are about the value we give to information.

This is genuinely the stupidest thing I have read today. I get that anti-capitalism is cool now but this is fucking insane. You want to incarcerate someone for exposing email addresses on a public service? Absolute madness.

And on that day, Satan will be skating to work.

Did you really start an account to post this shit?

Yep. Problem?

Companies will only care if they have a reason to. People need to start caring about their privacy and security and be willing to change product if they have to. We can blame companies and insist they start caring, but this makes no difference to them, people complain for a while and then they move on and the earnings remain unchanged.