3form

I would hardly call the requirement to understand the code you push "gatekeeping".

Meaning, you wouldn't touch it with a ten feet pole?

Same here. Sadly I think the voices like ours won't be heard, though, because Apple's looking for someone who's going to buy in on the whole ecosystem, and I think we're not it. Or at least I'm not.

Well, I have not once found a single case where an app reacting to screenshots and controlling the process in any way was anything to me but hostile and annoying. This one does not help.

It somehow is perfect example of how modern software engineering feels to go astray for me. A feature in my device working completely in benefit of the one providing said software. I wish, and wish only I can, that this trend goes away at some point.

Potentially. The existence of the law exemplifies the idea the law is there to protect someone; all you need then to upgrade it is to argue that the current method is insufficient protection. Spirit of the law has been established - letter of the law will follow.

It's true that open handhelds are where it's at right now. Steam Deck is also just simply a wonderful thing. Yet I know it's just somehow not the same as it's been before; architecturally, there's less innovation, just more of doing the "obvious right thing" here, and the big players, especially PS and Xbox are just sad attempts at dumbing down PCs to keep their walled gardens. So, nice things are still there, it's sadly just not as exciting.

>I think he picked up my "gaming is dead now" outlook since he doesn't really have any interest in new systems or games anymore

This is interesting, as I was about to say that gaming has never been more alive than it is now - but it's true that at least the developments in hardware are not nearly as exciting as they used to be in the past. Maybe that's what he's feeling?

I've seen at least 3 different ideas on this topic:

- people not skilled in a thing are bad at estimating their skills

- people are generally bad at estimating their skills

- people skilled in a particular areas often feel they are intellectually fit in other areas

Out of these three I feel like there's some truth in it, at least anecdotally.

What do you mean by "until"? I would argue that this situation is the _result_ of being stunted and dependent in the first place.

>This is just another shake down. Quickly becoming the least business friendly place on Earth.

Yes, exactly - isn't that the point?

I enjoy the funny implication it creates, that then perhaps if you're entering US in 2026 it means there's something wrong with you.

In fact it was often mentioned as a recommended way to try to invest in SpaceX via proxy, before IPO. I don't think that advice had much merit, but it was there nevertheless.

Mind you, I'm not arguing for the CVE, just complaining that the current thinking is very selective.

Why not both? Countries should be able to signal which business practices are undesirable.

Because you know, the actual solution would be to have more granularity in authentication process than "allow whole device to attach to ADB", but that would be like, difficult... so they're not going to so that.

Right now any app on my PC connected to ADB could manipulate my phone then, and that's somehow not a CVE?

What I find most annoying aspect of all software from 2010s onwards is this stupid discourse and associated results:

- some people want A, or A might even be already in use

- A is problematic for $MODERATE_OR_MILD_REASON

- B is introduced and made default

- a config switch between A and B is never considered

So, so tiring. If I want to bind ADB to localhost, _let me_. It's my device and my problem, ffs.

How do they handle these assurances? Personally I have zero trust in the AI companies not trying to use this data to get ahead in the game, and short of sharing the weights and harness so that the benchmarkers can run the models themselves, I don't see a satisfactory solution with this mindset.

I believe that most of terrorism does happen because the people behind it have some goals, not for funsies; so trying to fight the causes would be one thing to do. Obviously, that's difficult for many reasons, and making life more shit for everyone else is cheap and easy, and hence preferred.

Open-weight promise seems nice, but 1) I've seen people commenting that these hopes amounted to nothing for some previous releases (no idea which promises were made though); and 2) if the backbone is released as Dev, what will be missing? I can't easily tell from the post.

This looks great indeed - I wonder if there are any particular gotchas, though, as things often are in C++next land.

With many of the features coming into the language over time, I kinda wish that a bit more restricted subset of it eventually becomes a thing, but I know in practice it might as well be a completely different language. That, and I expect that still many other things have not been resolved as well as they are elsewhere, such as build system and dependency management (although I haven't touched this stack for a while now, so I would love to be surprised).

The problem being that I don't think there's a definite proof that any of human thinking is more than a sum of high-granularity partial solutions that can be put together.

It could be that with enough tokens, big enough context window, and ability to dig out the relevant partials, many such thought processes could be simulated.

What percentage of the budget was it? I think that's also needed for a meaningful comparison. I've heard about the war taxes being high, but I don't know anything about the economy of the time otherwise.

One example I can think of: privacy preserving ML models. Company wants to keep their model safe and also perhaps not to force you to run some classification on your phone for battery savings. You want your inference features to be private, because they e.g. contain your location data. You send them encrypted, you get encrypted results back and decrypt them.

It could have been obfuscated, but assuming we have HmE, obfuscation is more tricky to be done right.

Do we change the definition of encryption meaningfully in this process, though? If so, I don't see how really. It's just that out of set of potential encryption algorithms, for this purpose we would pick ones that are fit for it. It wouldn't be AES I guess... But it would still be encryption. Maybe a weaker one, but that weakness could be coincidental. I'm not familiar with any theorems in that space.

EDIT: I see a note that we lose ability to verify integrity of the data with HmE, but I guess it's still not really changing the definitions - just most of encryption used today also provides integrity guarantees as a kinda nice and desirable side effect, but it doesn't change that the encryption that doesn't still is encryption.

The point is to not have subkeys or any other way to access any part of the plaintex - as the goal is generally to offset the computation and the costs of it to another party. And yes, most likely it will require a very particular format of the data, and in all likelihood will allow only for a limited set of operations.

If it will, it will be with smartphones. YubiKeys don't quite have the properties sought here.

The idea of homomorphic encryption is to do things without the knowledge, and not gaining the knowledge. If ciphertext contains a number, and you don't need to know what number it does to always be able to multiply it by 2, you succeeded - as a simple example.

Well, for one, Debian and Debian-based distros make your home directory readable by everyone by default.

Security is riddled by traps. If you can afford best possible level of isolation, why not do it?

I don't know what's worse: that they did that, or that the operating system allowed them to do that. On both macOS and Windows according to my understanding that should require admin rights, normally, not to mention the degree to which Apple made macOS immutable (I'm not familiar with the details, to be honest).

This really does - I don't mean it in a disparaging way - read like a mid-life crisis writing. Having to come to terms with the fact that the "old world" is not the current world anymore, which is too bad, because you like the old one, and you don't quite fit in the new one either.

This feeling has existed across generations and most of us have to go through it eventually.

The world, however, is not any less real than it has always been and is not collapsing.

Maybe it's trivial what I'm saying, but hiring the most skilled available person does not solve the skill disparity.