anamexis

It isn’t an added rule for pinning. It’s the only rule about putting yourself in check.

And likewise, it's not particularly meaningful to say "That's a consequence of not being allowed to put yourself in check (by any means)."

The rule, "3.9.2: no piece can be moved if that exposes or leaves its own king in check." covers both the case of moving a pinned piece as well as moving the king into check, i.e. it covers all "means" of putting yourself into check.

You said “ That's a consequence of not being allowed to put yourself in check (by any means).” My point is that there are no other means.

The only way to put yourself in check is by moving.

This is not in the context of a requirement level. The definition of MAY as defined there makes no sense here.

School districts are often supersets of municipalities.

Prusa is on par with Bambu in that respect. Really, Prusa are the ones that pioneered hassle-free calibration.

Rejecting the conflicting request is being robust to improperly reused idempotency keys. There's no other reasonable answer.

It's not quite FLOSS escrow, but source code escrow is somewhat common among big enterprise software contracts. There are companies that facilitate this, e.g. https://www.escrowcompany.co/source-code-escrow/

How does that follow?

That’s just the same statement with an extra step.

The obvious question is, what jobs will replace them?

For any given IQ test, the norming sample is taken once. So if everyone gets twice as smart as before, everyone's IQ, as measured by any existing IQ test, would go up.

Adafruit sells enclosures for them, too.

I keep a few of these around to deal with this: https://www.adafruit.com/product/6323

Very annoying though! The devices are just missing a couple resistors which is probably less than a cent on the BOM.

Maybe I’m missing something, but once you’ve got durable state, don’t you get durable transport more or less “for free” with SSE and Last-Event-ID?

Claude Design is very explicitly oriented towards product UI design. It's not trying to be a product that can make you a logo.

The remote bootstrap script is not part of the exploit at all. It happens in iTerm locally without any ssh session. I just installed iTerm2 on a fresh machine (no shell integration installed), ran the exploit (generated the file with the python script, ran `cat readme.txt` locally), and it worked.

This is explained in the article in the "The core bug" section.

Wait, hold on. iTerm 2's "conductor" is listening for the special escape sequences, whether or not you are using the shell integration features. The exploit affects all users, not just ones who have installed iTerm 2's shell integration.

I would say iTerm 2 has a pretty serious problem. A detailed analysis of the issue having a sentence implying it affects all users rather than many or most users is a minor problem.

The entire article is "horribly written" based on that one overstatement?

Or:

- Use localization context to show the right order for the user

- Display context to the user that makes obvious what the order is

- Show the month name during/immediately after input so the user can verify

Because the vast majority of users have no interest in learning how to safely vet apps and just want to easily use their computers and not worry about malware.

The point of the CYA clause isn’t to prevent illegal activity or make the bank more aware of what customers are doing. The point is that when Bank 1 is defending itself in court, it has one additional thing they can point at when arguing that it should not be liable for the illegal activities.

> But the default expectation (and therefore the design) should follow the practices of the language. If JS allows mutations on the objects passed to a function to be reflected on the parent, I believe frameworks should follow this paradigm.

Why? Why should frameworks be beholden to the mutation semantics of the language, particularly with JS where there is no choice of language in the browser? Why should frameworks follow this paradigm?

I don’t know if I’d call it an idiom — rather I’d argue that in modern JavaScript, mutating passed objects is often an anti-pattern.

Why is it a shame that companies safely maximize profit at the expense of expressive and novel design?

The Data Privacy paragraph would suggest otherwise.

> By default, Atuin AI knows nothing about your machine, other than the operating system and shell. This is the bare minimum required to generate a decent shell command.

> It will soon be able to ask you for access to more data - such as the current directory path, contents, git status, etc - but you must give permission first. This will happen in a similar way to existing agents, and be configurable to an even finer degree in your config file.

I have to ask -- why? Atuin has not gotten any worse at its core history search functionality. All of the new features are entirely opt-in. Why switch?

And reminds me of my take: https://github.com/micahbf/halp

Excited to use atuin ai though, especially as it gets more features.