politelemon

Nope. Apple have been enthusiastic in their implementation of it even without it being required in several countries.

This is HN clickbait. No details or evidence, this is just generated for votes.

I think this should be flagged.

I'd like to apologise to everyone for this situation. It's very likely because I've just started using it recently.

TV shows have reached a point where the ratings are blurry and R content is becoming normalised and ubiquitous with little to no enforcement.

Games are still seen as something children engage in despite the average gamers being adults.

There is no perhaps.

Why were third party harnesses banned? Surely they'd want sticking power over the ecosystem.

> I can’t discern a slowdown from the OpenAI deal so far.

It's been less than a month, enshittification does not happen in 3 weeks.

The kneejerk reaction is perfectly valid and something we've learned from past experience.

Does this mean that Google participated?

https://www.gstatic.com/cow.txt

In reference to the first line, how can it be possible to skip rope with seaweed? Is it really that strong?

Similarly the people of Toronto recognise only two seasons, winter and construction.

Your work is always appreciated.

The title mentions 'after git' but the video demo shows that it's very much tied to git and Github. The post also mentions the overhead of dealing with git, but the examples shown come with their own overhead and commands. I'm admittedly unable to see the appeal or just misunderstanding it, but the number of stars on the repo shows I'm in the minority.

> This isn’t the point.

It is precisely the point. The issues are not part of harness, I'm failing to see how you managed to reach that conclusion.

Even if you don't agree with that, the point about restricting access still applies. Protect your sanity and production environment by assuming occasional moments of devastating incompetence.

They're friendly for the user audience that doesn't care about these things. The location is a minor issue compared to many of the capabilities they come with. For the slightly more tech savvy, they should really be running these harnesses in a contained environment with net cap dropped, for instance.

How is anthropic enforcing the ban, are there identifiers sent from harnesses?

This is a concern and risk that has realised itself multiple times over the past decades. There have been multiple stories linked to multiple developers in the past.

If you publish to any closed platform including ios, mac, win, android, this is the risk you run and a condition of operating you will need to accept.

What is openai's involvement here, as I am out of the loop.

Neither developers nor consumers should be comfortable with this, as this breaks the trust model and is extremely worrying. The site is of course downplaying it given its name, which is a huge shame.

Different people have completely different experiences as they perform different tasks, that shouldn't be difficult to understand. It's a bit like the purported degradation of quality of Google search. It is still excellent for me but I don't doubt that others are experiencing it.

This is a problem with all the OSes.

Amusingly, talk like caveman being discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47647455

It was still likely possible to have retained the originality and novelty of the first site without succumbing to the plague of our contemporary blandness.

I wonder if we ought to be flagging it then? There's already so much uninteresting AI slop observations.

> embarrassingly simple

This is becoming the new overused LLM goto expression for describing basic concepts.

Depends on what you're using it for, a small model could be viable as long as you're willing to absorb the maintenence overheads of running and deploying your own inference. A simple API would be much more cost effective especially if there are scaling requirements and time constraints.

I would recommend adding a delay to your dependabot updates and grouping the updates together into one pull request. Despite the noise produced it's a useful tool in that it calls for your attention.

It's all in the configuration: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/reference/supply-ch...

It's cringe worthy to see that the original paper itself is editorialised.

Title should be: Simple Self-Distillation Improves Code Generation

Little to nothing of what you're describing is related to ms. Any provider is legally obliged by DMCA and other providers do so when served with a notice. The discussions were taken down by the maintainers because the infected tar were being posted there.

As for the controlling infrastructure, once again that's on us for coalescing onto a single platform. The tool itself allows for distribution by its nature, but we as a mass of technologists are choosing to gather there. This happens no matter the platform owner, and you'll see it in other themes too.

There are numerous contradictions in their messaging. They admit the data matches, but is being misconstrued, but they're going to rebuild their network and reaudit customers anyway. I can only assume they've received advice on this poorly thought out message delivery from the same place they received that awkward gesture and body language coaching. I'm sorry to say that the combination comes across as insincere.

It really is very simple. Because people keep purchasing their products.