n0on3

Then get the cat in and grab your gun

That’s insane. Thank you for the service you provide.

> _An intelligent person can convince themselves of anything_

I think it might be just the opposite: convincing yourself of things relies on exploiting limits for which very intelligent people have much higher threshold they might as well not have them. When it comes to happiness, it’s kind of a superpower which I think very intelligent people just don’t have because it fights against their intelligence by definition. It’s also something that I think happens unconsciously.

It’s ironic, as you yourself provided a perfect example: a logic argument depending on unproven assumptions, if it lands in “convincing” yourself, exploits a limitation in accounting for the validity of the assumptions themselves (meaning: you believe it anyway). Assuming one could pick and choose the arguments (i.e., what to believe in) wouldn’t that trivially unlock happiness?

I get the point of the article and it resonates with my general tendency to support more openness, but older and more cynical me wonders how much of this is a battle worth fighting or a self-serving argument from an harness developer.

I mean, the article says each of the points it is complaining about has “_a basic justification that's trivial for a provider to come up with, along with good arguments for why this is good for the user_“, which to me sounds like implying these are just bs to have people accept them, but is that actually the case?

For instance, this [0] was mentioned here a while ago, and based on that it seems pretty clear why one would choose not to provide the _thinking_ anymore…

[0] https://role-confusion.github.io/

You mean like… some sort of code?

“the most powerful AI agent file-editing tool in the world […] patent-pending”… tl;dr: turn tool calls into more structured loops, give it some fancy name and slop about it https://hic-ai.com/blog/tool-response-engineering

Good luck with that

Seems cool from the docs page, I was about to give it a shot but https://github.com/vlm-run/mm goes 404 …

Apparently nobody cares. A few days ago I bumped-into and submitted this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48655747 . I thought given the general trust people seem to place in media files it would have raised a few eyebrows but it did not ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄

I second the sentiment, it’s unbelievably annoying. Even more so when the suggested solution from the “support” appears to be “You can downgrade to a version before we introduced this bug”. I’m not even gonna try switching to that new crapware, I’m just going to change client altogether.

Sure, but #80 out of 190, still not great ain’t it?

Oh boy, this did not age well. Most cases of “extremely successful” people I can think of exhibit the opposite of these core principles: have no “knack” whatsoever, except not giving a shit about whatever they pretend to be their focus while only focusing on personal return; they contract clusterfucks of debts, just usually never end up having to repay them personally; very few of them even know what “going all in” means, they usually live easy while exploiting others to actually do anything; they have no integrity whatsoever, and they do not have to, since apparently demonstrating lack of it is no longer cause for being told by everyone to fuck off into oblivion anymore.

And yes, yes, of course there are good people out there too that just want (/need) money to get by, but it’s funny to read this and think about those with _lots_ of money

Except most of the complexity has nothing to do with “understanding and exploring the universe”, it’s just byproduct of the ever changing fractal composition of attempts to gain or obtain something over someone else.

> humans would see that the quoted significance makes no sense

I wonder how long that will last

Would you be aware of it if that was the case? I don’t mean this to be hostile or anything but the senario in which one does not notice himself and it goes unnoticed or silently accepted externally does not seem too far fetched to me.

Their results are simply not reliable. The matching approach often matches too many things (hey, this could be A or B or C or D or E or F ...or 42!), or picks up things that have nothing to do with the license of some target (hello randomly included file with some completely unrelated license header and is not even included in the build but is there for some reason, meet your new friend, the utility script copied from somewhere else also not included in the build with an header for another unrelated license. You two feel lonely? let me introduce you to this other wonderful script included in some particular form of packaging) and of course cannot compensate for poorly declared licenses, typos, weird non-standard (or simply archaic/deprecated) ways to specify the licenses and so on and so forth.

It's not a fault of the tools themselves, but in practice they don't help much in real world situations. Basically you end up in need to do so many checks and manual fixes that you might as well not use these tools in the first place.

In an enterprise context one of three things happens: (1) you end up relying on a commercial solution (which is also not that reliable but you delude yourself into thinking it's not your problem anymore... although to be fair commercial solutions have curated licenses attributions and facilitate handling this mess); (2) you build your own thing that uses these (and other) tools but automates a bunch of fixtures so you don't need to go insane every time you need to regenerate an accurate SBOM with related licenses; (3) you quit software engineering, move to a remote location and start an alternative career as an alpaca breeder while whomever takes on your role pretends to ignore the issue and keeps shipping inaccurate declarations of licenses for dependencies thinking that's fine because nobody really cares.

None taken!

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to contribute though, since I was not attempting to celebrate anything nor to emphasize on traditions. I was just saying those "goals" have well known solutions that differs for some good reasons with what is described in the article, which claims (by its title) to explain "the right way" on basis that are unclear to me.

I do not know "Serious Eats" nor the author, so I'm sorry if I am antagonizing (not my intent, but I get it might be seen this way) a celebrity or his fans and in this upsetting people. I'm just contributing things I know from experience, whereas arguments like "this is one way, end of story" seems brittle to me, because you are basically dismissing the points that I probably didn't even explain decently (on your examples: you add pasta water, you get starch in the sauce which helps thickening things but you dilute other ingredients and will need to cook for more time to have the liquids evaporate thereby overcooking the pasta; you add "fats" like butter or oil at the end and you change the flavour of the dish significantly, other than its nutritions). Then again, if that's what you are looking for, great, I think I said at the beginning there's no objectively right or wrong, it's food we are talking about, if you are happy with eating the outcome good for you.

I mean, by all means please try it, and with that I mean actually get in the kitchen and do it, I think you'll realise there's a lot more than just "using a technique that makes sense in theory, end of story" to get your goals.

As an italian who is told he's pretty good at cooking, some of this is on point but a few things sound "wrong" to me (I use quotes because there's really no objective way to do this literally right or wrong, I'm just comparing with my experience / what I perceive "we learn from grandmas"):

- Put the pasta into the pan with the sauce (which I guess is the main point of the article which starts off with "italian" restaurants putting sauce on top of the pasta in the plate): defintely yes, but...

- Add pasta water: it depends on which sauce you prepared and how you prepared it (and the type of pasta... not just shape, but fresh -vs- dry, and what it's made of). When one uses "pasta water", it's usually in the making of the sauce, not before putting the pasta in the sauce pan; sometimes cooking water is added to the sauce if it "shrinked" too much or the ingredients are not of amongst those which attach to the pasta well, but these are their own cases. All that "adding water and stirring" to get to the "perfect texture" might appear to make sense, but I'm pretty sure it will take too much time and it will mess your pasta consistency because it will get overcooked. Sure you can under-cook the pasta alone a bit to compensate, but what's the point in that? What I'm trying to say is that this trial and error thing might make sense for someone who does it for the first time, but after a while you figure out how the sauce ought to be in the first place, you put the past in, jump it (as in, move the pan to make the pasta "jump" in it so it doesn't attach to the pan) to the right consistency and everything gets where it needs to be pretty easy without all that fuss. At least this is what I do and what I see others that seem to really know how to cook (based on the results) do.

- The bit about using cooking water (that's another way we call the "pasta water") to adjust the consistency which turned bad because of the cheese thickening and liquids evaporating... well, unless we are talking about sauces which have significant cheese quantities in it (e.g., the "cheese and pepper", or "4 cheeses pasta") and have a different process on their own (as does the mentioned "carbonara", which I guarantee you'll screw up if you follow this process because you'll cook the egg too much), cheese usually goes on top of the pasta in the plate as a garnish. For some sauces (e.g., the "amatriciana"), you're even supposed to make the plates (with pasta already mixed with sauce) get a bit less hot before putting in the cheese, to avoid it melting too much. Putting cheese in the pan for a non-cheese based sauce and make it melt and then thick is sort of a cardinal sin (you can add all the "pasta water" you want, you'll never get it back to where you need it to be and it will mess up your dish)

- Add fat: what? Just, no. Olive oil is of very common use, but you don't add it "to the sauce" for texture, for most sauces you use it as the base for the sauce. Butter? Unless we are talking about a butter-based sauce (e.g., butter & sage), which are not that many or very common anyway in regions but the northern ones, nope. Not like that. Some add olive oil as a garnish, but again really depends on which sauce you are using, and it ain't that common

> Why would they use 0days on security researchers. My guess is it's a test with upside

Or just be after the accesses the targets have...

> how they determined this project is linked to NK hackers

If they have enough confidence to attribute and not disclose how/why, one can fairly guess they don't want to burn sources or indicators which might still be useful moving forward but likely won't be if disclosed...

+1

(I'm not sure if you were joking or not and I know it's probably not in the same spirit you intended it here / a bit OT but...) I've been using literally that exact expression for a while to describe the situation in which, during somewhat complex discussions within a group, in order to not be perceived as jerks participants are forced to follow an unnecessarily long, repetitive, trivial and most often also completely pointless "line of reasoning" just to have their own attention completely derailed from any productive/actually-interesting argument anyone was trying to make, often ultimately resulting in giving up because recalling those lost mental threads is by then even more difficult and there is only so much mental energy (for you and collectively) to dedicate to that discussion.

Just saying, imho it's already a thing (with different incarnations in different contexts).

I am not quite sure what this says about me but I LMAO looking at this one, thanks

eheh, so much this. I was about to comment in a less sarcastic way but essentially the same thing.

I mean, we'll be just fine installing vim and make it the default as needed, I'm not so sure about those raised with the "it has to be easy" mantra.

I see what you did there

Plenty of good suggestions here, I don't have another one to add, let alone a better one. But I'll tell you this: you are not alone, this happens (a lot) and odds are it is not your fault. You asked how to deal with it, a lot of the stuff other comments said boils down to realising your professional universe is not so $negative_characterization_here like the place you are currently living in, it just seems that way probably because like a boiling frog you tried to adapt without seeing the hit coming, and came to think that's "normal" and you can't take "it" anymore. Time for a change, you'll do great in your next corner of the universe, and even if you find yourself into another bad one you'll recognise it soon enough and either fix it or leave it.

What they are doing is giving users an easy-to-use option to sacrifice part of the default user experience to enhance security by disabling features that are common vectors (which happen to be used by, as they phrase it multiple times in the announcement, "private companies developing state-sponsored mercenary spyware").

IMHO, whatever the reason why they are doing it, it's a good addition to their value proposition; but I don't think it's the same as what appears to be your understanding ("they will protect users from state actors"), at all.

This. So much this. In so many fields, it's actually hard to find one where this is not the case.

many sort-of-recent home network equipment support this stuff or equivalent (i.e., multiple networks) just as a configuration from their admin UI. You don't really need relevant experience to set this up, just very basic networking knowledge and will to occasionally shake your head at the web-based-admin-user-experience of the box.

I think we already know how to build secure tech, we just don't because of the cost, which is not 2x or 10x but way higher to the point that is deemed not worth/feasible both for private companies and governments, so it affects everyone and we are not getting out of it anytime soon (if anything sometimes we go in the opposite direction following the goal of money and calling it innovation). Heck, I think it would take a book just to even explain all the components of this argument. Go figure do something meaningful about it. Safe/unsafe languages is just one piece of this thing, and frankly a quite easy one to wrap one's head around: we already have so much stuff we use everywhere written when memory-safety was not really cared for and no-one wants to rewrite / catch up / surpass (there you go: because of the cost). So we get on with it, because meanwhile life goes on, bread needs to put on the table, people want to play with their shiny phones and whatnot, etc.

This is the point I feel most as well. I think this trend of burning attention is both destructive in ways and depth we don't completely understand yet - possibly making unrecoverable damage to our society on ridiculously large scale - and a blunt exploitation of the bias to consider attention as an infinite resource / not a real cost.

Personally I dislike also the "tracking to show me what I'm most likely to buy" but this itself (assuming such thing could exist in a vacuum, which seems unrealistic to me) has an inherently limited impact.