Counter: Netscape vs Internet Explorer. Netscape had a year lead, but it's hard to compete when Microsoft decided to bundle IE for 'free'.
If profit margins are razor thin, the Apples and Amazons and Microsofts of the world can happily copy an idea and hold their breath far longer than a smaller competitor can.
It takes a refined form of cynical misanthropy and tanky statism to believe that on balance, people are undeserving of even having the option of their private affairs being unexamined by the authorities, and that to even attempt to hide something from their eyes is to become a criminal.
There is already a tenuous balance in terms of power and consent between the governing and the governed. On balance, more harm is done to me by those in political / financial power than by the average criminal.
I'm not convinced handing governments omniscient surveillance is worth the price it exacts.
This quote from the original article reveals its author's fruitless strain to justify his ridiculous idea:
"(Note that IT liberalists who claim encryption is a human right never realize this should also include the right not to be forced to use encryption against one's will.)"
It would be true in context only if the users were given two options, like two buttons: "Click here for strong encryption" and "Click here for breakable stuff".
Who would click the breakable stuff? Yeah, me neither.
I'm not even sure who he's railing against with that. Is it violation of my human rights that I'm "forced" to use IPv4 or TCP/IP by my ISP, or HTTPS by my bank?
As far as being "forced" to use encryption; unless I'm missing something, I can't think of a law that would preclude my transmission of communications with another individual in plaintext. I'm free to use HTTP instead of HTTPS on my website, should I so choose.
And even if there were such a law, I'd be hard-pressed to figure what harm is being done to me (much less deprivation of human right).
> That will prevent it from eagerly implementing stuff.
In theory. In practice, it's not a very secure sandbox and Claude will happily go around updating files if you insist / the prompt is bad / it goes off on a tangent.
I really should just set up a completely sandboxed VM for it so that I don't care if it goes rm-rf happy.
how can it plan if it does not have access to file read, search, bash tools to investigate things? If it has access to bash tools then it's going to write code, via echo or sed.
Ok, it's done it to me 3 times today, so I don't know what to tell you. I remind it that it's in plan mode and it goes "oh no I shouldn't have modified that file then!"
It’s entirely possible. Claude’s security model for subagents/tasks is incoherent and buggy, far below the standard they set elsewhere in their product, and planning mode can use subagent/tasks for research.
Permission limitations on the root agent have, in many cases, not been propagated to child agents, and they’ve been able to execute different commands. The documentation is incomplete and unclear, and even to the extent that it is clear it has a different syntax with different limitations than are used to configure permissions for the root agent. When you ask Claude itself to generate agent configurations, as is recommended, it will generate permissions that do not exist anywhere in the documentation and may or may not be valid, but there’s no error admitted if an invalid permission is set. If you ask it to explain, it gets confused by their own documentation and tells you it doesn’t know why it did that. I’m not sure if it’s hallucinating or if the agent-generating-agent has access to internal detail details that are not documented anywhere in which the normal agent can’t see.
Anthropic is pretty consistently the best in this space in terms of security and product quality. They seem to actually care about doing software engineering properly. (I’ve personally discovered security bugs in several competing products that are more severe and exploitable than what I’m talking about here.) I have a ton of respect for Anthropic. Unfortunately, when it comes to sub agents in Claude code, they are not living up to standard they have set.
This has been my argument as well. We've been climbing the abstraction ladder for years. Assembly -> C -> OOP ->... this just seems like another layer of abstraction. "Programmers" are going to become "architects".
The labor cost of implementing a given feature is going to dramatically drop. Jevons Paradox paradox will hopefully still mean that the labor pool will just be used to create '10x' the output (or whatever the number actually is).
If the cost of a line of code / feature / app becomes basically '0', will we still hit a limit in terms of how much software can be consumed? Or do consumers have an infinite hunger for new software? It feels like the answer has to be 'it's finite'. We have a limited attention span of (say) 8hrs/person * 8 billion.
Of course it's here to stay. There are models that are --right-now-- great at text-to-speech, speech-to-text, categorization, image recognition, etc etc. Even if progress stopped now, these models would be useful in their current state.
Your argument could just as easily be applied to social networks ("are you still using friendster?") or e-commerce ("are you still using pets.com?). GPT3 or Kimi K2 or Mistral is going to become obsolete at some point, but that's because the succeeding models are going to be fundamentally better. That doesn't mean that they weren't themselves fit for a certain task.
I assume you're on a pretty attractive net metering agreement? That's a huge system.
Unless you're consuming a significant portion of that, the payback rate is going to be pretty badly impacted by having such a large system for most people.
I consume about 17MWh a year between two EVs and a large heat pump for winter heating.
I will have overproduction now with the 2nd array. We do have net metering at about 80% of the cost on NEM 2.0. Our bill is split by transmission, generation, distribution and fees. We get 100% on transmission and generation and 25% on distribution.
Sure, but as a licensed engineer, you're signing off on the design as being safe and fit for purpose.
What if their manager had insisted they use cheaper concrete or less rebar? At a certain point, you have to refuse to put your signature on to something.
It's not entirely clear how far up the chain of command the suspensions go, but if they're including decision makers in the suspension, I think it's a good lesson to others to not just rubber stamp designs.
If exempting "commercial purposes" from a law results in no harm being done to anyone, then you are arguing the law is shouldn't exist in the first place.
CCPA appears to limitations based on the size of the enterprise, so that doesn't guarantee protection.
So, which state laws prevent someone from wiretapping my communications and then selling it?
Does Jiro and his sushi constitute an artist and his art? Let's say yes, and let's say most people today agree with this. They're cosmopolitan enough to recognize the sophistication and craft. This definition therefore defines it as "art".
I would say if you told the average Brit living in the UK in the 1950s that there's a guy that's really good at slicing up raw fish, you might get a different average answer.
So I don't think art is dependent on the conclusion viewer, but on the intention of the author. If they arrange rocks just-so, because they enjoy the shadows they make at noon, I think that's art.
> So I don't think art is dependent on the conclusion viewer, but on the intention of the author. If they arrange rocks just-so, because they enjoy the shadows they make at noon, I think that's art.
That still depends on the conclusion of the viewer, because intent exists only in the heart of the creator. We can guess at it, or choose to trust the creator when they say what their intent was, but we cannot independently see and evaluate it. Then, other people can disagree with us on what the intent was. You say Jiro is is an artist, I say he's just building a fake persona to market his fish-slicing business.
I think there is no quality of "art" that's inherent to the work; I see art as purely social phenomenon.
I think the "homogenization" is the keyword here. It's not that trends are bad, it's just that, in the 'old days' a trend might start as a community-wide phenomena that over time might spread into neighboring communities, finally becoming part of the local / regional zeitgeist.
These trends would spread slowly enough that other trends in other communities would have time and room to grow and develop. The result is you get a bunch of localized cultures, all unique in some way.
The best analogy I can think of is a plant mono-crop. Instead of different species of plant gradually finding their niche, we plant 50,000 acres with corn or soy.
I have to say, even over the last 20+ years or so, it really does feel like you can go anywhere in the world and get a very similar experience. You can go to the local 7-11, buy a coca-cola, hit up your local costco, listen to people arguing about American politics. It just feels like different countries have gradually been losing their unique culture, and we just have this global homogenized version with slight regional differences.
People have been saying the exact opposite- that we used to all have the same 20 TV shows but now with internet microgenres we don't have enough shared culture anymore.
If you think of the ravelry community as valid as an in person community this will be nicer I think.
I think both things can be simultaneously true. There are a million sub-cultures that can now exist, that are no longer tied to a geographic location.
This is both good and bad. Good, insofar as if you're in the middle of Ohio in a 2000 person town, and really-really into model trains or whatever, you can find an online community that shares this. But I also think it's bad insofar as we've lost some sense of culture or commonality with our (geographic) neighbors.
But to the homogenization point; I still think within a specific sub-culture (sewing circles), you can have global homogenization. The sewing circle might new be global, on facebook and tiktok, instead of 10,000 insular hamlets. Is this bad/good? I'm not sure. There's nothing from stopping you creating a local facebook group. And in theory, good ideas can spread rather than be confined to a specific geographic group. But I can't help feeling that some independent thought and ways of thinking are lost through this globalization.
Independent thought still exists and is expressed but the network effects of influencers and copycats outranks independent thought on a platform like tiktok that group ideas and people together. Independent thought only has a place under an existing topic or brand.
>we used to all have the same 20 TV shows but now with internet microgenres we don't have enough shared culture anymore.
It has its ups and downs. It does mean that it's harder to mesh with any given stranger out there (unless you watch Sports, pretty much the last bastion of cable monoculture). But it also means anyone who does mesh with you probably is very easy to form a strong bond with.
But if you never find that person, the world can feel depressingly small. Hence the retreat to online communities and all its benfits and downsides.
If profit margins are razor thin, the Apples and Amazons and Microsofts of the world can happily copy an idea and hold their breath far longer than a smaller competitor can.
reply