brabel

We will probably find out very soon why humans organized the way they did for millennia before we decided to change everything.

The post seems to be talking about a html injection via a postMessage call where the receiver didn’t check who sent the message, which is a well known vulnerability entry point. Did I miss where OAuth had anything to do with this??

Yep that’s a great summary of what my wife, a professor, tells me about every day.

The funny thing is that you can easily get a LLM to introduce typos and grammar mistakes if you ask it.

I have a theory that every typo you make distracts the LLM from whatever you are trying to get it to do, so I avoid typos as much as possible. I have no evidence that this is true though.

I used to scour through server logs, build logs, test reports etc to figure out why tests were failing in CI. That was exhausting work and could take days of investigation. Now I get the exact root cause in a couple of minutes. Just had to give LLMs a token to call Jenkins API and it knows how to do the rest. What an unbelievable experience. Never ever thought computers would be able to do this in my lifetime.

I think you may want to look at ChatGPT Apps. It’s like a React app you can embed in the chat directly. The LLM cannot see the app itself , only whet your MCP actually sends to the agent. We did this with a customer and it looks very cool and we can do all sorts of advanced things like any UI can without agent calling tools unless you want it to.

emacs 31+ started emiting this warning for my custom Lisp files:

Warning (files): Missing ‘lexical-binding’ cookie in "~/.emacs.d/custom.el". You can add one with ‘M-x elisp-enable-lexical-binding RET’. See ‘(elisp)Selecting Lisp Dialect’ and ‘(elisp)Converting to Lexical Binding’ for more information.

I am still trying to figure out what to do! The manual is quite verbose and I haven't had the patience to go through it yet.

What are trying to say exactly? That only beliefs in a god or gods are really religion? But that any strongly held set of principles is given the same benefits by law as a real religion? What’s the point? If it is treated like a religion by people and by law, who cares if it involves believing in a god, or many, or none??

The whole argument that you always know when Zig allocates is just wrong, as this shows. They “fixed” the hidden allocation by making it explicit in the append function but now you can pass in the wrong allocator. Not great is it? It is just all so fragile and relying on convention rather than hard checks. People sometimes pursue a bad idea to incredible lengths and then everything else is justifiable based on that initial, bad idea that just causes much more pain than it solves.

Haha same here. The M1 Pro is such a powerful machine and it still works great. I did buy a MacBook Air M5 for non work, and I think it’s about as fast as the M1 Pro, but the latter has 64GB of RAM so I can actually work. Will probably request a new one next year though, it’s time.

I worked at a company that tried that 15 years ago. The problem is that the incentives for such businesses is perverse. It’s basically impossible to avoid people trashing a competitor’s product to promote their own, paid reviews, taking fees from manufacturers for making good reviews more visible for them (gotta pay the bills), all sorts of things that eventually makes your business unreliable just like all others.

That’s just not true especially when the author designed the language with the LLM like he says in the end (the AI is very good at forcing you to be specific and make decisions on ambiguous terms): all decisions can be included in the repository in a way the computer can follow and understand, which is a pattern called specification graphs. You can just document things in the docs as well if you want a more basic method. If you are claiming this language is worse in every way than others that were made by humans alone, could you be specific?? What are the bad things you’ve found? What part of the docs are incorrect? Or are you just commenting without having looked at any of that?

I've tried ThinkRail now.

I am a paying user of IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate, but lately I've been using mostly Claude Code Desktop App.

This is a cool product. Clearly, they made the agent chat pane the primary feature, while things like the Project Files and the editor itself is secondary (you are not even allowed to change files manually!).

The chat is very well done (I think it's just Pi?). People are saying how they use the IDE mostly for reviewing code, and ThinkRail makes that a primary feature as well: every change the agent makes gives you a "Review Turn" button that lets you look at exactly what was done. And the diff viewer is very good (not the same as IntelliJ, seems more like the VS Code viewer?).

It stores everything the agent does as a "Turn" so you can review every change at any time, like a git history. It also has the git log similar to IntelliJ, so you can still click on each commit in the history as well. In fact, the two things seem very similar, since each "Turn" normally results on a commit as well. It's stil unclear to me how "Turn"s are useful beyond the commit history.

It also has a fully functional terminal so you can try out things easily without leaving the tool.

JetBrains seems to have figured out how people are using their tools nowadays, and decided to go all in with this "Innovation Lab" tool.

I would still expect to be allowed to edit code/text myself in it, and maybe navigate around like in IntelliJ, but I guess I'm in the minority :P and most people just need something like this?! It's definitely much lighter than IntelliJ (it shows way down in my process list by memory, with around 140MB after quite a bit of usage, and it's highly responsive), so perhaps that's the main advantage, and bringing code navigation/editing/highlighting for all languages (it highlights the most common ones, but not LISP for example) would just result in a heavy tool again.

Its way of working with git worktrees exclusively is something I was already doing in the Claude Code App, so I think they got this right. However, CC App can also use a SSH remote connection (like TRAMP in emacs) to a devcontainer, and I've been using that a lot, so would be nice to have that option as well.

In conclusion: I like it and I think they may be going the right way with how things are going: the "IDE" becomes primarily a means to interact with agents. But at least for me, it's a bit too early to leave the full IDE completely, and I guess they could've made this just a "mode" inside IntelliJ without losing anything except for being very lightweight, and perhaps that's what they're going to do eventually?

I think you didn't understand my claim. My claim is simple, my long explanation above was meant for you to arrive at these conclusions yourself:

* people are nice when they still behave in the old, tribal way.

* the tribal way is always going to be creating individuals who are racist and conformant/conservative.

* not behaving the tribal way means going outside the conformist mold, which means you take risks and eventually learn by experience that taking more risks come with consequences. You become less trustful of everyone, while almost paradoxically proclaiming yourself to be more open.

This fits observation. If you believe it's wrong, you must demonstrate why with supporting evidence without contradicting the evidence I've used, obviously.

I love JB, IntelliJ IDEA is just great, but I am using it less and less with agents now. I see JB Toolbox has "Junie CLI" available for me. Have you tried both that and ThinkRail or Air? Which would you recommend for someone who is currently mostly working on the Claude App (which also manages worktrees seamlessly, which looks like what ThinkRail does)?

First of all , this is an observation of facts in the reality we live in. I agree with the OP argument that these things are intrinsically linked when we just observe the facts without trying to impose our beliefs on them. If we accept that, we can try to theorize about why that may be. My theory is that people are nice when they live among others who look and behave like themselves because that what humans did for almost their whole existence as a species. Archeological evidence suggests that if you met a stranger, someone not from your tribe, chances were high they would be a danger, not an opportunity to make a new friend. So humans seem to have evolved to not trust outsiders, not just strangers. In a small society, conformity is highly valued because doing things without understanding its consequences could often end up in catastrophe. People didn’t understand the world, and other tribes, well enough to have any confidence in whether a new behavior would be beneficial or not. So we end up with humans who trust and depend on others from their own tribe for everything, are highly distrustful of outsiders, and not looking like yourself is the greatest sign that someone is an outsider, and who value and demand conformity as a matter of survival. The world of today breaks some of these expectations in some ways, but they are still mostly accurate in my opinion. People who are more open minded tend to be so because they live in fairly cosmopolitan areas, but those also tend to be bigger cities where you don’t really know most people and where trusting others becomes harder, especially when many people have completely different backgrounds than you.

Even with the key, which is 4 apparently, you still need to impersonate another domain to have any success. That is hard to do unless you control people’s networks like in a WiFi hub.

I grew up in São Paulo, Brazil. Bullying was huge at school, even between the girls. If you took a wrong turn and stepped into a bad neighborhood, good luck getting out with any of your belongings, even clothes. Burglary was extremely common so not only we never leave the door unlocked, we need to put huge walls and gates with sharp metal spikes on top to try and stop people from stealing everything of any value. It’s still like that over there. When I moved to Australia I just couldn’t believe how trusting people were, and of course some of the Brazilians I knew abused that! It’s such a sad thing that some places somehow become essentially hell on Earth and you can’t trust even your own family, let alone a stranger. While in others you can go to a hostel, for example, the door is unlocked and the place unattended after 4pm so you can just spend the night and leave payment under the pillow when you leave (true story in the South Australian outback).

Doesn’t that make you think : why are they so nice on the one hand , but so bad on the other hand? Well I know why: you can’t have the cake and eat it too. One thing is the mirror image of the other, you need to choose which side you prefer to value more.

The problem is that your case is extremely rare. Most people work on systems that they never would use themselves or even know existed if not for working on it.

If you are checking every line written by an LLM , what would you estimate is the probability it would ever do this?? I look at most code still and I have a high level of trust that it would never do anything remotely similar to this.

Yeah but the post criticized Go for a project like Docker, so it makes sense to ask what else could have been used. At the time there weren’t many system languages fit for the purpose.

Because you don't mind contributing usage data so that the developers can understand which features are being used and maybe focus on improving those features in exchange for a free tool?

Ok, but the analogy was wrong anyway.

> random banks and IT companies in the world holds the secret codes to everyone's encryption.

That's not true at all.

What they do have is the power to MITM connections IF they first spook DNS or insert themselves into a proxy accepted by the server somehow.

So, if you want to be honest, the original sentence becomes:

> random banks and IT companies in the world holds secret codes that are trusted by everyone to sign information that is used to establish trusted communications. If they wanted to, they could try to tamper with people's network connections and, if successful somehow, pretend to be anyone else that had used their secret codes to sign their information.

Quite a big difference, no?

Right, thanks for correcting me. This stuff is not so simple to get right.

My dad used pliers to open the trunk! Even thought us how to do it so we could help him out.

I believe you misunderstood how it works. A parent certificate cannot be used to decrypt information encrypted by a child certificate… the CA issuer just signs your child certificate, it doesn’t have access to your private key.

Then, everyone who trusts the CA will trust your certificate by checking it is signed by the CA who should have done the checks to ensure your certificate contains truthful data.

So your layman description of “they have secret codes to everyone’s encryption” is completely wrong.

Thank you for posting this as it’s a great example of what one can automate these days to achieve things completely out of reach before LLMs… but why even bother answering to the trolls in this thread who clearly have no clue about who you are, why you are doing things this way, and almost certainly have never done any of those things themselves! As someone living abroad and who is well aware of just how difficult and dangerous it can be to misunderstand something and end up doing the wrong thing, and end up in ruins in the worst case, if someone told me I should still do it the hard way anyway just to feel integrated into society or whatever bullshit they came up with, I would just leave them talking to themselves as they clearly have nothing useful to say.

Why would you think that? There’s a reason anyone who can afford an assistant has one. You can just do much more.