Well, that's at least a positive. I hope this means they are also forced to accept the weakest credential type, and that they can't require you to present the identity proof that the wallet also provides when verifying your age. Because if they are allowed to do that, then that is what will happen.
We also have a Danish wallet now, AltID, which implements an anonymized (assuming no collusion between issuer and eavesdropper or service provider) age verification protocol based on batches of single-use tokens which contain no personal information (except that they can be traced back to you by the issuer).
It's been released and in production since summer. Since then, several social networks have apparently started A/B testing age verification for their EU users, but how many of them actually integrate with the anonymous solution that is now available and in production? To my knowledge: 0. They all use Persona.
This highlights one of my main criticisms of EU's naive approach to regulation of tech companies. They fail to realize that any regulation that they impose will be complied with in the most malicious way possible, which is how we got cookie banners with dark patterns instead of a simple HTTP header saying no thanks to cookies.
No it isn't, this is also the security model that prevents those same agents from cloning your phone before giving it back to get access to all services you are logged in to, including any SSH keys or government identity apps you may have installed.
It's not a trivial task, but yes, they could and should. They could also just officially start supporting existing android alternatives such as GrapheneOS by requiring banks and government ID apps to be independent of Play Integrity, which can be done today for very little money and effort.
Sideloading is not at option from 2027 since it will be made much much more difficult than it is today, requiring users to enable it via developer options and wait 24 hours.
But this can also just be removed from the app stores and the developer certificates can be revoked. Due to the centralized control and distribution of software on smartphones, no smartphone based payment system is really sovereign - it only exists because the US allows it to.
We did a prototype to integrate an agent into our application and basically just gave it a tool to discover the OpenAPI spec and call endpoints. It worked surprisingly well! One caveat was that some responses were too big and would poison the context, but then I gave the agent a GraalJS engine and allowed it to save responses and post-process them using JS. For the little amount of work required this gives the agent a lot of power without having to give it full CLI and without having to create bespoke tools.
I have already commented about this is probably the worst advice I have heard in a long time, and I would definitely not let this guy anywhere near a codebase I had to maintain.
But this is also essentially blogspam. The author intentionally includes two screenshots which add absolutely nothing to their point and which are too small to read. When you click the second one, you are not taken to a larger version, you are taken to the frontpage of his company website which features the same screenshot.
Then it sounds like you can only have a true microservice architecture if your application doesn't really need transactional guarantees, consistency or fault tolerance.
Is this satire? Changing your easy to maintain monolith architecture to a microservice architecture to enable parallel agent development, really? That's got to be some of the worst advice I'd heard in a long time.
You will have conflicts during parallel work if people are changing features that are related. You will also get these conflicts with a microservice architecture and hundreds of independent repos, but now it is not a merge conflict because you touched the same syntax, it is a semantic conflict.
And didn't Uber also have a famously slow and convoluted CI pipeline where it took an enormous amount of time and resources to build anything?
Yes, and this is the reason that many of us have not, and will not, ever buy an Apple product. They are the ultimate technodictators, and their products are only for people who like to trade their freedom for moderate convenience.
Yes, theres a similar one for Microsoft Authenticator which obviously tries to con you into installing it by also advertising that it allows you to "sign in to your Microsoft accounts".
I see the exact same thing on Play Store, and I think Google is outright complicit in fraud. The top result when you search for an app, even if by exact name, is always, literally 100% of the time, not the app you are looking for, but some other ad-infested knockoff spyware shit whose developer paid Google to be placed before the real thing.
There is no single conforming "corporate world" that applies to all companies. If AI is treated religion in your company that sounds like a local problem, even if it seems like a trend.
Besides, GP was not talking about corporate, but about the inability to even suggest an improved usage of LLMs among their developer peers, as if every line of code generated by AI is now gospel and questioning it is treated as heresy. This level of defeatism is beyond cynical and approaching childish.
What is this defeatist attitude? I don't know where you work, but it is not my impression that AI has instantly turned all developers into mindless AI-pilled sheep. If you feel like a simple suggestion like that will cost you your career, then it doesn't sound like a place where any constructive criticism would have been accepted even before AI.
This is a common problem, and I don't get why LLMs have not been tuned to stop this nonsense. It is writing comments as if the audience is you, the user in the session, while obviously code comments are meant for future readers.
The vast majority of people who lose weight by calorie restriction gain it back, so I wouldn't call it highly effective. Short term yes, but long term, definitely not.
If you generate PRs too big to review for others, then they are too big to review for yourself. This means you are delegating the task of understanding the code to an LLM, and the end result is inevitably that noone in the organization understands the code better than someone who just walked in the door. They can write the next LLM prompt just as well as you because they know as little about the system as you.
In that situation I ask you: what is your moat as a software company? Why would your customers keep paying you when companies like Anthropic can just do your-software-company-as-a-service and cut out the middle man and six figure salaries?
I have had some success with asking the LLM to rewrite the commit history after the feature was written. I often have a good idea of a good conceptual split, and the LLM has no problem doing the soul-crushing work of manually pulling out individual files or hunks into a sequence of commits and making sure each builds.
I need to do this before I can even review the code myself, and I review everything before I send it to my colleagues for their review.
I think both can be interesting, but surely the 100 words will lead to a lot of variability in the exact shape of the result because so much of the spec will be left up to the LLM. However, it is still interesting to judge the quality of the result and how self-consistent it is. Not by looking at the actual webpage, but by looking at the code and whether it is nicely organized, makes proper use of abstractions, and in general doesn't feel like spaghetti.
I think this is so fascinating because the hallucinations sound unlike anything else produced by psychedelics and other psychoactive substances, so I really look forward to learning what the mechanism is.
From the stories I've read it also doesn't sound people are experiencing outright delirium although the experience can probably be pretty stressful if you don't know what is happening.
My doctor told me the same, but I think it's the wrong way to phrase it because I truly expected them to become invisible and got frustrated when they didn't. What they mean when they say that is probably that you learn to ignore them (unless you can't stop focusing on them), but they are by no means erased.
I got a large amount of floaters in my left eye after a sparring session where I was hit in the eye. Also had flashing in the periphery of my vision when I moved my eye, so I went to an eye doctor to have it examined. Luckily he couldn't see any signs of detachment and it's also been stable for well over a decade and a half now without any worsening.
I find that they mostly don't annoy me now, but it genuinely took almost ten years for me to get to that stage. I would focus on them all the time, in particular during a period where I suffered from severe health anxiety.
In general I feel much less anxious about everything now than I have previously, and incidentally now is also when I almost don't notice either the floaters or my (very) mild tinnitus.
I have a shell script that sends a message to me on Slack, and I have instructions in CLAUDE.md that it should be invoked when a long task finishes or if my attention is needed. The Slack app API key is one way messaging, so it doesn't allow Claude to exfiltrate anything.