spopejoy

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.

Lol, binance wins because of volume. Crypto traders see cex security risks as the price of doing business, they're not going anywhere.

Yes but given the dominance (and vulnerability) of CEXes, assets are often effectively frozen after a big theft.

I wonder what compels her, rekt etc to keep covering crypto shenanigans. If by now you don't already think crypto is corrupt, web3isgoinggreat is not going to change your mind.

Crypto is a house of cards in general, even economically. The systemic risk surrounding restaking in particular is jaw dropping.

Most things in crypto aren't ever tested because the big players know they'd all lose if the faults were exploited.

This is irrelevant for large accounts operated by market makers, wallets for rebalancing portfolios for derivatives etc.

Was Tandy only EU? In the TRS-80 days the name came up a lot, although maybe just because of the acronym ... 6809E was a good time

> the application that was (probably) compromised was an FTP client

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.

> No function pointers

As in nothing functional at all? Or are there anonymous functions etc?

FWIW OC 2.0 remembers perms for a project/directory pretty solidly now, so flow-killing approvals are more a one-time thing for a given project. It's sad they can't be globally set though, so a new project pays the approval-by-tool tax.

Huh ... is that related to why I see little Gemini hits constantly when selecting e.g. DeepSeek 4.1 flash on openrouter? I'm not going private for a bit (mac studio on the way) but when I do I want to lock it down, but pretty stuck on opencode for the moment. If it's leaky that's a problem.

I tried switching to Pi twice. Both times it seemed agents go crazy with tools on Pi and do stupid things right out of the gate, (like get `find` syntax wrong, seriously who [what] does that??). Plus things I appreciate in opencode (even if they were buggy in 1.x) like "prompt for perms tool-by-tool in this session" seem to only be available in Pi by writing your own extension, and now I'm wasting time debugging my extension with an AI that gets tools wrong and constantly wants to search `/` for no good reason.

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.

Not normally one to pile on dang and co ... but I agree that's a weird change. I don't know how article title changes are handled, is it possible it was a dedupe?

> cyber security head at one of the largest healthcare companies in the world

"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.

> they genuinely believe in AI safety risk ... vs. it all being an industry conspiracy

Why not both. Yudkowsky's social graph includes most of these folks.

Even worse are slop graphics. A stick figure driving a realistically-illustrated horse and carriage??? Barf

Did you read the whole article? It returns to menopause to discuss the very things you wrote.

> even designing the architecture is going to be completely automated

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.

You can get a decent idea running some of this stuff locally. Depending on how efficient you want your agent to be, you can get an awful lot done on beefy local hardware and ~300W power consumption. Just inference of course ...

That's just ... not true? Have you tried qwen3.8 (compared to qwen3) or deepseek 4? they've improved tremendously, maybe not at every class of problems, but if you take a disciplined approach and don't ask them to one-shot everything (e.g. update agents.md as you go, actually use the thing you build, give feedback etc), it's positively absurd what you can get done now with a single agent.

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.

Kind of too bad there's no discussion around this, it's a very cogent AI-doomer-busting summary. I also found a thread summarizing David Bellamy's steelman takedown of the AI-bioweapon fantasy on X, linked in TFA: https://en.rattibha.com/thread/2099187370407112758

A big issue with java at big companies is that the JVM deployment is managed by sysadmin and devs can't touch it. To bless a java upgrade therefore means getting a defensive bureaucracy to take on risk, however miniscule, and since most Java improvements only help devs (rarely do they enable critical user-demanded features), sysadmins won't budge.

Just keep it disconnected and enjoy the "dumb" TV with a streamer box.

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.

It is really mysterious how awestruck folks are at the HF attack. I mean just watch one modern agent (qwen 3.8, deepseek 4, glm 5.3) rip apart a coding problem and nearly destroy your computer in the process, it's a wonder it took "months" and "millions" in the first place.

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.

And GLM 5.3, and deepseek 4.1 ... Hyperscaler fanbois have their heads in the sand

> Clearly the US could conquer Iran

Vietnam (and Ukraine) would like a word

She also has the SBF "reallllly believe my own BS/drink my own urine" story. I think it's probably true of every con(wo)man out there? You probably can't really con people if you're not genuinely sociopathic.

I missed the part on your previous reply about having a union rep on the board. This is foreign to me as a US citizen so perhaps my vision is blinkered by the horrible state and history of labor relations here.

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.

> The most recent examples are the unionized London Google workers attempting to force the company to terminate its military AI contracts and giving researchers right of refusal on individual projects. Something similar happened at Microsoft, it was not a union action but it was organized. Public service unions (teachers, police, corrections) are of course highly political and often get involved in things way beyond work conditions and pay.

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.