fauigerzigerk

4 ms·

1.
by fauigerzigerk 7d ago
It's a good idea if it actually works. Are enough commercial users paying up so that these projects get some serious funding? If companies avoid using software governed by such licenses then the overall impact is negative in my opinion
2.
by fauigerzigerk 10d ago
I agree, but what I disagree with is the idea that everyone must be prevented from freely installing software on their own devices to make sure unskilled people cannot be tricked into doing it. I don't really understand why a well desi
3.
by fauigerzigerk 1mo ago
I agree in general, but the market response can be very lumpy and sometimes substitution happens more quickly than investment in new capacity. Only a handful of companies can make high end memory, semiconductors and semiconductor equipment.
4.
by fauigerzigerk 1mo ago
I mean, you could make a better comment about it, but in my opinion the sarcasm is justified. AI has greatly increased the number of security bugs found on a weekly basis (which is great) and we're getting one of those one-shotted and
5.
by fauigerzigerk 1mo ago
On the other hand, this year's RAMpocalypse could be 2028's RAMbundance ;P
6.
by fauigerzigerk 1mo ago
>That's only the DSA, it's only a small part of web regulation in the EU Absolutely, but the context was small online forums. I don't disagree with the gist of your general criticism.
7.
by fauigerzigerk 1mo ago
>all that crap that the politicians force not just on the big ones that need it but also the little forum run by the one kid in his bedroom It's bad enough but not quite as bad as you claim. Article 19 of the DSA exempts small web
8.
by fauigerzigerk 1mo ago
I agree. And even if they were able to do it for one more round, it's not a sustainable strategy. What they (Anthropic and OpenAI) need to do is build platforms and integrate verticals.
9.
by fauigerzigerk 1mo ago
I would normally agree with that, but in this particular case "everyone" is just over 200 individuals. And he could be opposing it on principle as well. A one-off retroactive wealth tax is a rather questionable form of taxation e
10.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
>In child mode, yes, installation of any other OS (compliant or not) should be prevented. Not just in child mode, because child mode would only exist in compliant operating systems. It would not exist in all Linux or Android distributi
11.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
So under your proposal, all checks would happen exclusively on the end-user device. Websites would do absolutely no age checking, nor would they get any kind of signed certificate from end-user devices vouching for the user's age. Am I
12.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
Makes sense.
13.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
Exactly, and it comes up in every single one of these debates.
14.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
I agree, it does seem awfully complicated and there are quite a few pieces missing for this to be a complete solution. I'm a bit surprised about the scalability case against a simpler solution. This is not about Shopify's scale. W
15.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
Isn't there a simpler explanation in that "my server" can refer to a role or to a specific machine? The author uses "server" as a role. So "my server is a phone now" translates to "the server role in
16.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
I think MCP (or any kind of external API) serves a different purpose than ad-hoc code generation and scripting. In my view, the MCP should be part of the specification. It should expresses intended actions and/or restrictions while the
17.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
Whistleblowers. Personal use would still be possible of course.
18.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
I understand that this is true for a lot of application code. It's not true for library authors though, and every language needs libraries.
19.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
No. This cognitive load is conceptual. You can't avoid it by using slightly different syntax.
20.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
It's hard to avoid, because (naming aside) the cognitive load is caused by higher order functions, which are hard avoid without causing massive code duplication. I understand the desire to keep things concrete and avoid high level abst
21.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
"Much of this is a consequence of designs are not code. With most design languages, there is no automatic way to generate code" Maybe now there is, but I don't know how good LLMs are at using these relatively obscure (at le
22.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
Sure, I mean, I don't care. It's just useless. Not sure why it's upvoted so much. The post is barely intelligible. The information content is zero. If someone explains really well why they find their own product great, that&#
23.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
I don't have a problem with that if "truly good" is measured by something other than "feels good to me".
24.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
>I haven't yet found a way for a mobile app or web page to explicitly signal to the device that the passkey to be created should live in $password_manager and not whatever built-in/on-device key-store exists. On Android 17 (o
25.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
No you're wrong. It absolutely is a consequence of connecting an LG monitor. Connecting an LG monitor triggers a chain of events that deterministically and deliberately cause these ads to be shown. The hardware alone is not sufficient
26.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
I disagree. It matters that LG makes ads appear on their customers' screens as a deterministic consequence of connecting one of their monitors. It's not superstition. Of course the details are important on some level. But that doe
27.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
I would say it's neither a lie nor misinformed. It 's a punchier headline that can be justified by what the user experiences. The user connects a monitor which causes ads to appear. The rest of this Rube Goldberg contraption is a
28.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
I don't know. Some of it did seem like short attention spans and not enough perseverence. But what do I know being far from an insider.
29.
by fauigerzigerk 2mo ago
>Android wasn't created to undercut Apple Android the technology wasn't, but Android the commercial product along with its business model was. The first iPhone came out in June 2007. In November of that year Google and partne
30.
by fauigerzigerk 3mo ago
Yes, that's the wiggle room Count Binface was referring to in the interview I watched.

More ›