MyOutfitIsVague

Preventing smuggling of data where you don't want it is definitely an aspect of security.

No DRM would really work. There's always the analog hole, and OCR is more effective than ever.

I want to read the books I buy on the device I paid for, regardless of what device it is or software it's running, and without having to ask an arbitrary middleman for permission. Nothing less is acceptable for me.

Don't know their rationale, but back in the day it was really popular to cat a zip file onto the end of a JPEG or PNG and upload it onto 4chan, to be able to smuggle zip files where only images were supposed to be allowed. I remember back in the day seeing the "mods are asleep, post sinks" threads where people would share pictures of sinks, and I thought it was people being goofy, but later somebody told me that people were sharing zips of CP in those threads. I don't know if it's true or not, and never cared to find out.

It doesn't work for the newest encryption scheme for epubs. Current epubs downloaded from NetGalley won't decrypt with it, unfortunately.

The effect, very often, is to force anybody with specific reading habits to buy Amazon or be unable to read their books. This is especially bad if you don't just buy books, but read through the library or especially if you get ARCs (advance reader copies, for pre-release reviews). Advance readers who don't have Kindle are jerked around constantly by DRM and especially changes in DRM schemes. It's really hard to not see this as collusion, as it suspiciously always works for the benefit of Amazon and the detriment of every single other person and company involved.

> how is it bad behavior to say you’ll issue a takedown notice if your copyright material is republished

It's not. That's not what happened here, though.

It is bad behavior when you threaten legal action against somebody working within their rights to legally allow people to read things that they paid for on devices that they've paid for. The DMCA has specific carve-outs for interoperability. Threatening legal action there is bully behavior. I'd argue that the ethics are pretty clear-cut here too. A ton of copyright law is incredibly badly balanced against the consumer and even against small artists in favor of the biggest players. If this was illegal, it would be the law that is unethical.

It's pretty surprising to me the number of people who don't know the rules of checkers here. I guess they were probably taught by a friend or family member who was using house rules.

If your piece isn't a king, capturing backwards isn't legal.

I think in general it's a shrinking minority. I was outspokenly critical of systemd in the past, but much about it has improved, and I have to admit it has made my life significantly easier in many ways. I'm still not a big fan of some things being systemd projects that don't really need to be under the umbrella (why is resolved even a systemd project? Or systemd-timesyncd?) but service definition and management, transient services, sockets, timers, and many many more things are pretty great. At this point, I pretty much love it. Even things that initially annoyed me, like timers, I've grown to love, not least because my cronjob entries are manageable files that I can commit and backup, and I can individually enable and disable them without having to deal with stupid commenting and such.

Checking service status and managing services is also significantly better with systemd than any other init system I've used, and I've used a lot over 15 years of systems administration.

I still find journald a bit annoying, though, and I still am not completely sold on binary log files. I understand the benefits, but working with them is still much more opaque than text logs.

Some people just really like the work they do. There's nothing more to it than that.

Didn't that program end nearly a decade ago?

This is interesting and subjective. A shared workspace is completely unacceptable to me. I need my monitors to have different, unlinked workspaces that can be independently switched. It's one of the things I hated about using Gnome.

I've gone on and off tiling WMs over the years. I've just switched from Sway to this, and I'm really enjoying it so far. I have a lot of the same issues with Sway. I really like Sway, but to get the windows working great for me, I end up having to do a lot of manual window management.

I really liked Paper WM with Gnome, but it had lots of little nits that made it frustrating to use (but it did a very admirable job for a Gnome shell extension), and I went back to Sway.

They removed wording in their FAQ saying that they wouldn't sell data. It's a subtle distinction, and may or may not make a difference depending on your perspective.

I can only assume that either they are trying to point out that words aren't behavior, and mimicking human writing isn't the same thing as mimicking human behavior, or it's some pot-shot at the capabilities of LLMs.

If you're using the LLM poorly. Many team leads spend very little time programming, and spend a lot of time reviewing code, which is basically what working with LLMs is. If the LLM writes code that you couldn't have written yourself, you aren't qualified to approve it.

If you import a module by its path or URL, it is cached by that path. So if you update a file, browsers that have already pulled that module will get the old version. Getting around this needs some sort of digest. To import that file, you need to either use an import map to get the proper digested file or a preprocessor step to substitute the digested name into the importing module.

Due to that caching, you still need some sort of preprocessor to digest the files and generate an import map. Third party modules also add some extra friction. I found that when I ended up pruning out all the edge cases, just bundling it ends up being less work anyway.

To do it effectively, you need an API key and a tool like Aider: https://aider.chat/

Depends a lot on what context you feed it. If you have decent internal documentation and can feed it the right files, it tends to do quite well for me, often needing corrections or style fixes. To use it most effectively, you have to know the vast majority of the code that you want it to write ahead of time. It saves time typing, looking up methods, wrangling APIs appropriately, and sometimes it surprises me by working around an edge case or writing an appropriate abstraction that I hadn't considered, but most of the time, it's mostly saving time on typing and tedious gluing, even with the corrections I make and hallucinations I have to correct.

Maybe it will be at some point, but it is not yet a reasonable substitute for having to think, plan, or understand the code you are working with and what needs to be done. It's also still more expensive than it needs to be to use on my free time (I'm happy to burn company money on it at work, though).

> when you read studies, giving people 400 mg of caffeine (~4 cups of coffee) delays sleep by 30 minutes or so.

I'll need to see those studies. I'm finding the reverse: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3805807/

> One study examining the sleep effects of 400 mg caffeine administered 30 minutes before bedtime demonstrated both severe sleep disruption as well as important cardiovascular effects during sleep likely related to increased sympathetic activity.

> But just survey the actual browser market in the last 10 years to understand Chrome's dominance

I feel like most people here wouldn't understand that to inherently indicate superior quality. I'd argue that the absolute dominance of Chrome is mostly evidence of the monopoly power that Google yields. It got on top via search, becomes the gateway to the web for people, leverages that to sell advertisement and also convince tons of people to use the browser. It's been all leverage.

I'd also disagree on it even being a better browser. Firefox has issues, but on actual usability and feeling like a user agent, it's head and shoulders above Chrome. It is more flexible, more customizable, and I find that it runs significantly better on every website that isn't owned by Google. If Chrome was a better browser, they wouldn't have had to sabotage Firefox on their sites for years (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38349357).

It's Google that can't compete, if they have to use back-channels and leverage their other powers to maintain dominance. They aren't competing with the product alone.

Not on desktop, but PWA support is there on Firefox for Android at least.

It was more than just too many competing browsers, from what I understand. It was a few competing browsers that interpreted standards completely different, and a standards body that was slow enough to be completely ineffective.

I'd argue that the main problem was not too much competition, but effective anti-competitive behavior (and simple laziness) from Microsoft in particular. The frustrating experience was primarily caused by Internet Explorer.

Whew, you're not joking. This whole thing is 156 lines of Go. I'd probably have just used a shell script for this kind of thing.

I'm not using any marketing; I'm sharing my experience. At work, I recently had to build an interface for JNI in Lua. I had to do a lot of the fiddly bits myself, but most of the interface the LLM generated without a problem, just being fed my existing Lua interfaces and the JNI docs. I had to do some clean up and optimization, but it definitely saved time. I then fed it the JTOpen Java docs and had it use the interface to make a wrapper around JTOpen for communicating with IBM i message queues (which was the original goal of the project), and it did enough of a good job to definitely be worth the expense (notably, Claude did nearly perfect at generating JNI method signatures that it inferred from the Javadocs; as a counterpoint, it did generate interfaces for a couple methods that didn't actually exist). These things are really really good at generating interface glue, generating good documentation, generating tests, and limited refactoring.

They won't do the thinking for you. You still have to know what you want out of it, you have to know your endpoint, and you have to be able to review and understand every line out of it, but they do save time. You might have tried to use them in situations where they aren't appropriate. They are text prediction programs, but they're extremely powerful text prediction programs. If you accept their unreliability and give them the right patterns and context to generate from, they can write a thousand lines of code in one go that look identical to what you would have written, and it takes 30 seconds to generate and a few minutes to review and test, compared to the half an hour at least that it would have taken otherwise. It can easily yield 10 times efficiency gain in places where it's really appropriate.

That said, it's not perfect by any means. To be really what I want, I need the same quality significantly faster, cheaper, and local. If my company wasn't paying for it, I certainly wouldn't pay to use this thing myself. This costs between $0.05 and $1 per request, which gets expensive fast, and the much cheaper models are less capable enough to save me so little time as to not be worth the bother really.

It can 10x certain tasks. If you're making an interface to a library for a DSL and have documentation for the library, Claude 3.7 will very accurately fill that out for you extremely quickly.

There are a lot of tasks that follow a pretty predictable but not automatable pattern that LLMs do a great job at, but that you couldn't leverage macros or other powerful editor tools to complete. Getting good at LLMs can greatly increase your productivity. But unless your job is just gluing well-defined interfaces together, spinning up demos, or writing documentation for existing code, you won't get 10x. 2x is very realistic for most programming jobs, though. Some tasks would potentially be below 1x, especially low level, novel, thorny logic. I'd never use it for developing new cryptographic primitives or a novel compression codec, for instance.

2FA does not increase the key strength. The key is solely derived from the password. 2FA limits access to somebody who already has the password to get in. The LastPass leak was of a backup, though, for which 2FA does nothing.

That, and it's better in most functional and polish regards than LastPass. I haven't used 1Password, so I can't compare those two directly, but I'd strongly recommend BitWarden over LastPass as far as those two are considered.

There are valid criticisms of Aider (I feel like it might use more tokens than it needs to, but I haven't done a lot of comparisons), but output quality is certainly the model.

Two points:

1. Encrypted data is not hidden. You still know that there is data, it's just in a form that you can't understand. Just as difficult higher-level math isn't "obscured" from a non-mathematician (who knows that it is math, but can't decode it), encrypted data is not obscured.

2. You could make the argument that the data is actually hidden, but the fact that data is there is not hidden. This is pointless pedantry, though. It is both contrary to the way that everybody uses the word and stretches the meaning of the word to the point that it's not useful. There is a common understanding of what "Security through obscurity" means ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity ) and interpreting it far beyond that is not useful. It simply breaks down communication into annoying semantic arguments. I enjoy semantic arguments, but not tedious, pedantic ones where one person just argues that a word isn't what everybody understands it to mean.

More specifically, it's about WHAT is being obscured. "Security through obscurity" is about trying to be secure by keeping the details or mechanisms of a system secret, not the data itself.