inetknght

> You can't run a combine harvester 100% autonomous

I'm curious why you think that.

> Sorry, cash is all but dead in 2026.

Speak for yourself. I pay cash more than I don't.

> Never attribute to malice what can be explained as greed.

Why attribute to greed when the effects are indistinguishable from malice?

Oh yeah, auth itself isn't that difficult. But... auth resilient against malicious actors?

> Consider this: if Microsoft exfiltrates your keystrokes, it's a privacy violation, but if a random person does the same thing then it's a security violation

No, it's a security violation no matter who does it.

[flagged]

Yeah no. If I wanted to use a pager, I'd use a pager.

I want the output visible on screen after I exit the pager. If I didn't want it on screen, I'd pipe it to a file and open that in a text editor. That will disappear when I close the file. As a bonus: I can then use grep without having to repeat whatever command I used.

Even more importantly: I want the command to behave identically regardless of whether its stdin or stdout is /dev/null or a terminal or a socket or a serial port or a pipe or anything else that it can read or write with. Try writing a script when the tools themselves change how they behave whether they're running in a script or in a terminal or elsewhere. It kinda sucks.

Previous discussions:

- (2024): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39273932

- (2020): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25304257

So you're doing work but not willing to pay others to do?

That's a great excuse. Meanwhile, there are billionaires whose investment incomes could pay those salaries many times over.

Where do those investment incomes come from?

Ahh, yes. Profits.

Transparency doesn't matter without consequences. Many of the currently ruling governments have demonstrated that already.

> It’s perfectly legitimate to say we’ll develop this in other markets and ship it to the EU when it’s fully baked.

It's also perfectly legitimate to legally require business to slow the fuck down and consider how the thing will be used or abused, to make the product not crash for even just basic usages, and to put real safeguards in place against problematic scenarios.

But no, move fast and break things wins the day every day in the US.

Interoperability only requires Apple to allow third parties to have the same capabilities that Apple does on your device. It doesn't require you to purchase or use a third party service or device. It merely allows you to have that choice in the first place.

Microsoft was mostly on the Embrace step. They've reached the Extend step with Copilot. They'll eventually Extinguish grep.

It's best not to use Microsoft products.

> Functionally the EU is requiring that Apple dramatically RELAX their privacy and security postures.

No. Interoperability doesn't require Apple relax their privacy and security postures. It could instead require third parties to improve theirs.

Do you think this is a problem with the EU? I don't. I think it's a problem in the way that Big Tech operates: by function of theft and laundering of data, and by screwing end-users and consumers in favor of profits.

> Apple have a pretty large vested interest in not supporting interoperability here

Yeah that needs to stop. This is kinda why the DMA was created in the first place...

> Skipping the EU makes sense in a fast-moving market (if you’re designated as a gatekeeper).

Skipping the EU makes sense if the company doesn't want to comply with regulations aimed directly at it.

> complying with the DMA from the outset could mean having to launch a year later everywhere.

Oh no! Anyway...

Once upon a time, companies delayed launches specifically so they'd launch a better product. That seems to be gone these days and end-users have garbage products as a result.

So Apple doesn't want to compete? Cry me a river.

I could almost feel sympathy if it were something to do with some contract that Apple signed with their AI provider. Who's that, Google?

Ahh, a "competitor"? Yeah... cry me a river.

My first "oh shit" moment was when ChatGPT 3 was brand new. Maybe December 2022 or so.

I have a personal project: who's winning the race at 3 AM?

You see, I don't sleep well. I live in a busy city, with a busy freeway about a half mile away. Sometimes at 3 AM there are some very loud cars racing on the freeway. That's illegal for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that the noise pollution wakes people up from their precious sleep and causes knock-on affects to the population.

Anyway, now that I'm woken up, my only question is: who's winning the race?

I used this question as a way to explore a hyptothetical tech stack, with each part of the tech stack useful in some way to my work as a software engineer who's interested in robotics.

- run raspberry pis with microphones, collect audio data

- run a k8s cluster for audio collection and processing

- calculate and triangulate individual points, and give estimations of velocity based on position changes over time, and adjust for doppler shift

- estimate (poorly, but doable) engine power based on amplitude

- run a webserver in the k8s cluster showing an animation of the racers with color fields representing estimation error radiating from the position estimate, with arrow representing velocity

Great project, actually. It was really thought-provoking. I had this working in late 2018.

Since there was a lot of hype around this new "AI", I thought how smart could it be?

I threw the scenario to chat GPT. I did have to break the problem set into smaller parts for context window purposes. But the solution it came up with solved about 80% of the project correctly (and very close to solutions I already came up with), about 15% of the project remained "open until we have more data", with maybe about 5% of the project would have been incorrectly solved.

That was very much an "oh shit, AI is closer than the 20 years away that I've been telling people. It's more like 5 years away"

Here we are three, almost four, years later...

I saw this show up in RSS feed on Slack before here. Interesting, posted a message about it.

Not 2 minutes later, a coworker sent a message saying they got a message: their repository messages couldn't be sent, because the user is no longer authorized. The coworker was worried that they might be fired.

Alas, this economy is a terrible time for one business's fuckups to cause worry about people being fired. That's a lot of stress, man!

If only it were measurable in dollars, then we could sue Microsoft for damages. Maybe then Microsoft might stop producing slop. Ahh, wait. Who am I kidding? No, of course that won't cause Microsoft to stop producing slop.

> Why save all the blame for the side that actually put up resistance

Resistance is one definition, I guess. A very loose definition.

I'd call it what it was. Career sociopaths decided to put a career sociopath on the ballot instead of someone the left's citizens would actually like.

I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, most of the world seems to disagree with us.

> Nobody forced them to use their real names and post countless pictures of their faces alongside

No? You've obviously never been ostracized from your friends, family, or coworkers due to not using Facebook or Instagram or whatever the latest vapid social network is.

> 10 years? Damn, that is a long time. I always assumed that heat-induced damage will kill a CPU after a certain amount of time (5-7 years). Am I wrong here? I assume yes. Or are CPUs must stronger/tougher than the bad old days?

My i7 920 is still running fine. Or, it was when I decommissioned it in 2017. I don't imagine any reason it shouldn't, except perhaps bitrot of spinning rust (spinning rust rotting is no joke, especially after ~20 years) and maybe aging of thermal paste.

My i7 6950X is still running fine, in use since 2017 even today to write this message.

It's certainly relevant to the topic: notifications, and a claim of legal requirements.

Legal requirements are useless without enforcement.

Really?

You might want to ask most contractors, or contract lawyers, about that.

"I was just following orders" for basic property damage typically doesn't hold up in court for them either.

> I always thought robots being used for evil would be cool dystopian dictatorships that would try to grind me under its boot but I would resist. Instead it’s just

It's... both.

Scope Violation: `cat ~/.zshrc`

Scope Violation: `ls ~/Documents`

Buddy, my `${HOME}` is committed to a repository. It includes `.bashrc` and `Documents` directory. These are not scope violations if I'm having the LLM work on them!

> I’ve almost never encountered a marketing email that didn’t have an unsubscribe link

Have you encountered a "marketing email" that you didn't sign up for? That's called phishing.

Have you clicked on links in phishing emails? That's called getting pwned.