Arnt

It formats mail flawlessly, signs as necessary by default, sets up every detail and checks that it's correct during installation, what more do you want?

As an alternative: install Mox and do as the installer says.

Seeing up your own mail server is too hard, particularly if you don't use one of the easy ways.

You can heat with coal if you search long enough, too. There might not be a retailer around the corner from wherever you are, but the number of coal retailers isn't zero.

Weird what people will believe.

In this case GP probably knows that e.g. Italy has a life expectancy well above that of the US. Still, when he read that well-off people in the US have much better health coverage and it takes months to see a doctor in Italy, he believed it. How is it even possible to believe such a thing when you know the numbers?

You read that? I can get either in a day or two if I need it, they want much longer-term planning though.

For a vaccination I'll call several weeks in advance. If I want an appointment before/after work I'll call well in advance, if I want something tomorrow they may say "11:30, take it out leave it", which isn't great for my work.

Don't trust whoever wrote what you read there. FUD scaremongers.

I've done something like that too, but I find it restricting.

I want back-and-forth, very approximately like when I do pair programming. The dividing line between what I do and what the AI does varies according to task and sometimes during the task, and is seldom clear at the start.

Then there's the work that wants a human to click buttons and decide whether something is a good and correct user experience. The AI does not have access to my display if I can avoid it.

Overall, the model you describe is one that's worked very well for me, but for some problems. An unsatisfyingly small set.

"let's send this stuff from the warehouse to Ukraine" "let's say it's a value of $x even though it's close to the use-by date" and then come you and write that someone sent $x, and expect anyone to believe that.

And you even write that $x makes hard things easy. Hope much did the US pay to lose against Iran? Winning against anyone for the same sum isn't easy.

Sometime who worked for an advertisement provider told me it worked well as a signal, though. This was before it was obsolete. So few people used it that it helped identify its users.

(His employer explicitly ignored it. They used an ML algorithm to assess signals, but they overrode that particular assessment as soon as they discovered it.)

$10/kg is what DHL charges me for shipping things 100km. Are you saying that SpaceX intends to approach that price for delivery to orbit?

Why is it going to be huge? Who are the customers and what do they want?

I don't follow this closely, just look at the pretty pictures. If there's demand for lifting much bigger/heavier things to orbit than presently possible, I would probably not know, for lack of pretty pictures. So please tell.

Uh-huh.

A small town where I've lived was very much like its neighbours, but one particular neigbour was different in two clearly visible ways: ① there were (still are) more rich people in that neighbour and ② it was much easier to get financing for starting and growing companies in that neighbour.

I live in Munich. Couldn't find numbers for the metro area, but I found numbers for Bavaria. It seems that Google's electricity usage has grown to the point where it uses more than half as much energy as the Bavarian car-using commuters do. Still less, but more than half. (This counts only trips between home and work and only those by car, and the number is decidedly imprecise.)

So at this point, I assume that Google uses more power than the Munich metro-area single-car commuters, even for the widest definition of metro area (the widest I've heard spans 6m people, four times Munich's own population).

Is this reasonable? Is it reasonable that a collection of services with >1B users uses more energy than the single-car commuters in a metro area like Munich? I rather think so. (But then I don't have a high opinion of the value of driving to work.)

Focus on a single metric instead of outcome and you win on that metric instead of the outcome.

I remember that for, uh, Key Quarterly Objectives, was that the name? Aeons ago.

Same shit new decade.

(I love working with AI though. It has many of the benefits of good pair programming.)

Someone who has read too much history might come to think that Russia's size protects most of it. Like against Napoleon.

1000m² with one window wall: do you think that's an open-plan office or an apartment? And you can't really split it into ten, an apartment with e.g. 5m of windows and 20m depth doesn't work.

Enshittification is neither invariant nor universal — Rolls Royce has built cars for a hundred years and the new models still aren't Ladas or supermarket shopping carts.

Claude is a paid service, not one of those freebies where you are the product and receive as little consideration as practically possible, while advertisers are the paying customers for whom the service is optimised.

We're still arguing for several reasons, one of them is that people still confuse the user with the owner, as you do. "The user must be able to override" is implies that if you have physical access to someone's phone, you can install a keylogger before handing the phone back its owner. Nice for you but I imagine the owner might still quibble, even if you quote TRON.

It's complicated… in a sense the bulletproof solutions are the ones that raise the cost of executing the attack above the average take. In another sense even they aren't bulletproof.

This particular attack requires getting users to sideload apps that would be rejected by the play store, and most users don't have developer mode enabled. Therefore, the cost of persuading someone to enable developer mode matters. If the procedure to enable developer mode changes from "open settings, scroll down, tap, scroll down, tap seven times" to include e.g. a 96-hour wait for developer mode to be enabled, then the cost of the attack rises by whatever it costs to stay in close contact with the victim for 96 hours, close enough to react if the victim comes close to realising the truth.

This isn't a guarantee. You can still get phished even if the phisher has to spend 96 hours in intensive contact with you. Some victims are worth that effort, maybe you are, and maybe the phisher made a mistake and puts in the effort to phish you based on the mistaken assumption that you're a millionaire.

There are also other things like that. If Google can ban the keylogger you use quicker than you can deploy new builds, for example. Still no guarantee.

Are you in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore or Thailand? Those were the four worst-affected countries IIRC. Although I seen to remember Ecuador or Bolivia as well?

(They do something about other scams too. There was another thing they published recently, I didn't pay attention since no side effect of that concerned me, something to do with caller ID.)

I see. I looked at https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.faircode.em... and saw nothing.

I can see why your address is shown if you offer something for sale. Ads, that puzzles me.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

The attack in question doesn't use apps on the store, or even any attempt to get them on the store. There are also other attacks, but the one that prompted this change uses social engineering to get people to tap the build number seven times, sideload something and get a keylogger that then picked up their banking details and used them. Several governments raised the issue, Google acted. (The actions are to slow down the tap-seven-times process, so it becomes harder for the scammers to keep their victims fooled until the keylogger is installed, and also to tweak the timings, so the scammers can't outrun the app-banning process.)

If you haven't had your bank account drained, the scammers you met were different ones. (And I'm sorry that you've been scammed.)

Of course Google generally tries to squeeze profits out of… whatever it does, but eh, by closing something? Google is the company that makes a million in profit from the openness of the web in the time it takes me to write this paragraph, why would that company think that closing something improves its competitive stance?

I think they care now because of pressure from the governments of the countries involved.

And perhaps because ten and twenty years ago, the sums stolen were small. Now they're in the billions.

This started with phishing, poor people being tricked to install apps that then drained their bank accounts. So to resist, maybe focus on that evil? Better international cooperation, better prosecution?

How? I don't see the address published.

They can sue you and Google will give your address to the court, clearly. But swat? Send packages? How?

I know Graphene has innovative security measures, do you happen to know whether that includes anything wrt. phishing or social engineering?

(For those who haven't been following along: this whole affair started with phishing. People were social-engineered into installing an app and a little later their bank accounts were empty. A big issue in various poor countries.)

This seems to sum it up: "At least four Spanish projects or companies have been offered for sale, according to people familiar with the matter. Arena Green Power SL and Matrix Renewables have been shopped around, the people say, asking not to be named discussing private processes. Both companies declined to comment. Privately held RIC Sun España SL was on the market, but the company says that’s been shelved as it works to add batteries to its parks."

FWIW this happened on Friday afternoon and the AC was back in working order on Monday morning.

That building doesn't have the kind of outdoor unit you're thinking of, it has central climate control and gadgetry on the roof. You can see it on Google Maps.

Also 19 satellite antennae, if my count is right.

"... involve a commitment to buy a certain quantity of product and pay for it in a pricing band that has a floor and a ceiling price. The floor price covers the historically high gross margins mentioned above, and the ceiling price means those who commit to an SCA are insulated if memory prices go even higher."

So clearly 16 large buyers consider it likely that prices will go even higher. How likely? >10% chance? Likely enough to sign an agreement.