barsonme

Yeah, Claude Code. I have the $100/month Max plan. I run 3-5 instances “in the background” (just another terminal) while I work. It really helps work through the backlog of “easy-ish things that I eventually need to do, but are relatively low priority.”

Why not? I regularly have a couple Claude instances running in the background chewing through simple yet time consuming tasks. It’s saved me many hours of work and given me more time to focus on the important parts.

No, it is not. This is precisely why we have the term E2EE. An escrow agent having your keys but pinky promising not to touch them is indistinguishable from the escrow agent simply having your plaintext.

Unless you’re fine with the escrow agent and anybody they’re willing to share the keys with being a member of your group chat, in which case my original point still stands.

E2EE means only your intended recipients can access the plaintext. Unless you intend to give the government access to your plaintext, what you described isn’t E2EE.

That’s insane. 13 hours of work + commute. After 7 hours of sleep you only have 4 hours left in your day for literally everything else.

The United States has many allies. Obviously the US and UK have a “special relationship.” Then there is AUKUS. Then NATO. DoD calls a number of SEA countries “allies,” including Japan and Korea.

Stating that the US has no allies other than Israel is unequivocally false.

On the contrary, it’s a very strong claim.

The guards could decide they’re not getting paid enough and steal the data. Or the government could arrest them. Or the government could MITM the data center. Or any hundreds of different scenarios.

At the end of the day, the only thing preventing somebody from accessing the data is that they just… don’t.

This is very weak security and it is why cryptographers and security professionals call it “effectively plaintext.”

If the chat is not end-to-end encrypted, which Telegram “cloud” chats are not, then by definition Telegram (the company) has access to the chats. Full stop.

> IMO it is a questionable decision to spend CPU resources on randomization …

It takes about 3 ns to choose a random starting bucket, which is basically free relative to the iteration itself.

It was not supposed to /universally/ replace C++.

It was supposed to replace C++ in projects where the developers would’ve otherwise reached for C++ simply because it was the default language choice.

The site seems down, so here's the wayback link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240701032732/https://boston.co...

What are employees supposed to do? They’re not the police, they can’t arrest anybody for stealing. And they’re most certainly not a deterrent for these kinds of these bulk thefts.

Plus, it’s incredibly unfair to the employees to make it their problem. A cashier or stocker or whatever shouldn’t be responsible for doing anything other than calling 911.

People have been stealing stuff, like laundry detergent or baby formula or power tools, in bulk then reselling it for half price on eBay or Facebook Marketplace.

Maybe they’re desperate for money. But they’re certainly not desperate for $20k of baby formula [1].

[1]: https://www.fox8live.com/video/2024/03/24/police-thieves-cau...

> Why shouldn't I want them to be running drones over our houses?

Because it’s creepy.

Is it normal for papers to have that many authors?

Signal is not a VPN. How is this relevant? Or did you link to the wrong comment?

My only complaint is that his sourdough starter chapter has you make buckets of the stuff. Maybe it’s supposed to make it more difficult to screw up, I dunno.

Hm? https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/sys/unix#Mmap

Newborn bowel movements are also important for preventing more serious jaundice.

Obscurity can certainly be part of defense in depth, but it unequivocally does not make anything more (meaningfully) secure.

For example, hiding the fact that your data is encrypted with AES doesn’t make an attacker any more likely to be able to break AES. Similarly, hiding the fact that you use a weak encryption algorithm doesn’t keep an attacker from breaking it.

> and messes with semantics - it will add or remove parentheses in math expressions

Wait, so prettier rewrites code incorrectly? Aka, it’s buggy?

Their target audience is literally the general population. It should be obvious why phone numbers are a reasonable constraint.

This is incredibly myopic and ungrateful.

Thanks to technology, we don’t have to try and have eight kids—losing half of them at a young age—just so that we don’t lose the farm and starve.

Thanks to technology, millions of children are protected from diseases that years ago they would’ve died from.

But sure, blame technology for your lack of self control causing you to stare at your phone at bars.

It is never acceptable, under any circumstances, to wholesale slaughter, rape, torture, and desecrate innocent civilians.

Pick a fight with the government, not senior citizens at a bus stop.

What Hamas did on 7 October wasn’t a “counter-attack,” it was literal genocide.

Matt’s blog post does not convince me that this is “entirely bogus.”

> To put this in less abstract terms, if dad beats mom and they get divorced, it’s not accurate to say that, but for the divorce, the kids would have fared exactly the same as a similar non-divorced family where dad does not beat mom. Yet that is what the research Kearney relies upon assumes.

Is she really suggesting that an unstable, abusive 2P household is significant better than any 1P household? Given her quotes in TFA, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Matt also writes:

> As with any group, the missing parents are a heterogenous bunch, but that population almost certainly skews towards below-average earnings and below-average domestic contribution, with many actually having a net-negative domestic contribution, whether because they are abusive, demanding, or otherwise.

> This is easily the goofiest thing about this discourse. To hear Kearney talk about it, you’d think that the single mothers of the world are turning down $44,000 and hundreds of hours of free child care each year. But why would someone do that? If that option is as incredibly beneficial as Kearney says it is, why don’t people select it? Do people want their lives to be bad rather than good?

TFA states that 50% of children in the US are born to unmarried mothers. Should we assume that 50% of fathers are abusive or demanding or just an overall net negative like Matt suggests? That seems like /quite/ a stretch.

Matt assumes that the single mothers turning down “$44,000 and free childcare” must be doing so rationally (because their potential partners would be a net negative). But people don’t always think rationally, especially young people having children out of wedlock. It can be an incredibly stressful and difficult situation.

That, or he ignores social stigma and the amount of work it takes to work and raise a child and quite naively assumes that unmarried mothers have the same ability to find a long-term partner as somebody without kids. Perhaps many of those unmarried mothers actually do want $44,000 and free childcare, but find it difficult to get that after having a child?

If this were true, SCOTUS would almost always be split 5-4. But, it is not. In fact, it typically has significantly more 9-0 decisions than 5-4.

For example: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/23/trey-wingo...

That’s not a breaking change.

> But second, the new Broadcom SOC finally supports the ARM cryptography extensions

Wonderful, this is long overdue.