> before handing the tasks over to the AI agent to continue the recklessness with even more abandon
Which is a funny outcome of this because apparently the AI agent (Claude) tried to talk him out of doing some of the crazy stuff he wanted to do! Not only did he make bad decisions before invoking the AI, he even ignored and overruled the agent when it was flagging problems with the approach.
Their end-to-end encryption is pointless because the vast majority of any recipients will just leak the plaintext emails via their own account providers anyway. It only works under very specific circumstances (all parties are using it). I think their marketing overstates what their secure private email actually means.
Yes. If you send an email from a protonmail account to a gmail account that email is in google's system. Same if in the other direction. Would anyone using protonmail not know this. I would guess at least 99.9% of proton users understand this.
I'm sure it's a very nice place to live if you're content to just stay quiet in society and never put a political sign in your yard or even just talk about the wrong thing with your friend in a WeChat.
> never put a political sign in your yard or even just talk about the wrong thing with your friend in a WeChat.
Practically, how many care about that? Consider that in other part of the world they also cancel folks based on social media opinion...
and that Benjamin Franklin's opinion on security and freedom? Thats terminally online phenomenon only. I once tried to bring that without specifically mentioned that it came from ol Ben himself to folks IRL. Many thought it was some anarchist blabbers.
This is an exaggeration. Nobody in China cares about what you speak with each other privately, and people talk about stupid policies all the time. The government cares about _public_ actions.
In practical terms, if you're not kind of person who would want to run for an office in the US, China is incredibly comfortable. Cities are safe, with barely any violent crime. Public drug use is nonexistent. And with the US-level AI researcher income, you'd be in the top 0.1% earners.
> nobody in China cares about what you speak with each other privately, and people talk about stupid policies all the time. The government cares about _public_ actions.
My comment and the linked video says otherwise. The guy was in a private group chat and said some nasty things about the police for confiscating his motorcycle. Now he's arrested and in the Tiger Chair.
Group with 75 people. That's a crowd, doesn't matter if gated behind QR code invites. Shit talk cops and gov with the bois is fine. Shit talk / soapbox in a crowd (virtual or real) and get caught or reported = drink tea on the menu.
Sigh. Let's not invent things? You can protest anything in the US just fine, with generally no consequences. Heck, our local _high_ _school_ students go out and protest everything to weasel out of classes.
Let's just clarify that visitors don't have the same rights as citizens. Whether or not you agree with the current administration's policies hopefully we can agree that it is entirely reasonable for them to deport foreign political dissidents more or less at their discretion.
If you want to put this to the test try crossing the Canadian border and when they ask you the purpose of your visit respond that it's to attend a protest.
> Let's just clarify that visitors don't have the same rights as citizens.
Yunseo Chung was not a visitor. She came to the United States from South Korea at age 7. She was arrested last year for peacefully protesting. Charges against her were dropped but the govt. canceled her green card.
The govt. has been trying to deport her since then, but the courts keep blocking it.
While the legality of these actions are being debated in courts, I think most of us can agree that this is reprehensible behavior on part of the Trump admin.
I never claimed to condone the actions of the current admin. The examples of people being deported for protesting that I am familiar with are student visa holders. While I don't personally support the examples that I am aware of, I also recognize that in those specific cases the executive branch appears to be within the bounds of the law. I don't even object to the executive branch having the power to cancel the visas of political dissidents in the general case, merely to how they are choosing to apply it.
It's surprising to me to learn that a green card could be revoked for protected speech. That ought to fall well outside the bounds of the law IMO. Green cards and visas are entirely different things.
>While I don't personally support the examples that I am aware of, I also recognize that in those specific cases the executive branch appears to be within the bounds of the law. I don't even object to the executive branch having the power to cancel the visas of political dissidents
It's my understanding that the 1st amendment applies to everyone, not just citizens. So if that's true (not 100% sure about that), how can political speech (protesting) be a valid reason to remove someone from the US?
Well obviously it can't be if that's true. But is it? What led you to that conclusion?
You can certainly be denied entry for entirely arbitrary reasons. Can you also (as a visa holder) be evicted without notice for same? I think that's generally a safe assumption for any country in the world but would be interested in learning about counterexamples.
But the constitution is not worded as if they don't have the same fundamental rights. Even in other countries, it is the same; this is done to prevent slavery and unjust incarcelation. So visitors have the same fundamental rights to free speech, fair trial, etc.
The US has also agreed to international conventions. But the current administration seems to not care
It's definitely not as simple as you're making out. Political speech aside, visas have routinely been cancelled without forewarning for all sorts of reasons historically.
Does someone on a short term visa have the protected right to purchase firearms? Visitors aren't even permitted to get a job without the appropriate type of visa. Being allowed to work is a pretty fundamental right.
I expect there's a difference between the bill of rights and the constitution, and likely further nuance as well.
> Trump admin did put people in prison and then deported them, for doing nothing more than protesting.
Link? I’m guessing we’re going to see that this definition of “protesting” involves being aggressive and directly in the face of law enforcement officers, not merely holding a sign at a distance.
> Link? I’m guessing we’re going to see that this definition of “protesting” involves being aggressive and directly in the face of law enforcement officers, not merely holding a sign at a distance.
Please read up on this one example of a US permanent resident. And then justify the actions of the govt against Yunseo Chung.
It just looks a bit ridiculous when students walk out in protest against things that are far outside the influence of their school, city, or even state.
Clearcast is a private body owned by the broadcasters. The BCAP code is issued by the Advertising Standards Authority which, despite the name, is an industry self-regulation body.
It appears to be established in law that Clearcast is an assistance service, and approval doesn't seem to be sufficient or necessary by law to ensure advertising is legal. It establishes risk, rather than making a legal finding.
If Mullvad's ad was 'banned' by Clearcast, what happened is that their ad didn't meet the standards that the industry has set for itself and the broadcasters didn't want to touch it.
(edit - does this make it 'better'? I don't know. It seems to me a bit like the situation in the US with HOAs, which heavily restrict what you can and can't do with your property, but aren't exactly government either. But I favour accuracy over emotion when talking about this stuff, which is why I wanted to point out the actual structure of the system here.)
Not sure how an HOA is relevant here? Communities vote to form an HOA for themselves, new owners buying into an HOA community know up-front what the restrictions are.
Not remotely the same as a cabal of media conglomerates getting together to agree on their own rules about how they are going to interpret and enforce government-mandated censorship in society.
It's relevant because everyone is saying this is government censorship. The parent is pointing out it's the government in the same way as a HOA is. Ie not.
I guess it depends on how you perceive "censorship". I wouldn't think of banning a misleading ad as censorship. My country, Greece, was under a military dictatorship for a few years in the 1960's and 70's, and censorship involved e.g. pre-approving all music, including not just song lyrics but also the music scores. Works by the two major Greek composers, Theodorakis and Hatzidakis [1] were banned outright and could not be played anywhere under pain of pain [2]. Obviously everything anyone wanted to publish in the press had to be pre-approved by state censors and any criticism of the regime, either written or simply spoken out loud, was punishable... you get the gist.
Not allowing advertisers to lie to advertise their product is I think not a kind of "censorship" one really needs to be worried about. They're free to advertise their product otherwise, they're just not free to lie to do it.
I feel silly making this elementary point, but freedoms can't ever be absolute in a society of more than one humans. Even in the US I bet you're free to drive, but you're not free to drive drunk. You're free to have sexual relations, but not with a minor. You're free to walk anywhere you like but not in other peoples' property and not on the streets with the cars (which btw is perfectly fine in Europe and it's rules about jaywalking that are "pants on head" for us).
These are rules. Societies have rules. They should have them. There's no problem with that.
And now my 16-year old self is very disappointed that I've grown up to be a conservative, establishmentarian fossil.
___________
[1] Coincidence. We're not all called something-akis.
Mullvad says it is, they're more credible than Ofcom or Ofcom's fans. The trick of strong-arming all providers of a certain medium to "self"-censor in order to implement advance censorship is an old trick.
> The person intentionally didn't put in much effort.
And it's incredible that they got a somewhat working wifi driver given just how little effort they put in.
I have no doubt that a motivated person with domain knowledge trying to make a robust community driver for unsupported hardware could absolutely accomplish this in a fraction of the time and would be good quality.
This is news to a lot of Americans! The 2022 CHIPS and Science Act is codified federal law. I think a lot of states (Arizona, Idaho, New York) would be very interested to learn that the funding for the infrastructure that they are already building has somehow gone poof.
Intel is now partially government owned(10%), they got rid of some of the milestones. The current administration has been extremely poor about communicating changes as well as constantly yanking funding (or threatening to) for projects - the chances of funding going poof are higher than ever.
It looks like it's still a big difference between how the US and EU are responding to the chip supply wars. The US is actually building their own manufacturing capabilities domestically while the EU is apparently doing nothing, which is unfortunate.
There is also https://www.vishay.com/ which expanded several sites in .de, without much fuss, or begging for subsidies. That is neither RAM, HBM, NAND, nor NOR, but nonetheless much needed stuff, for all the electrified cyber.
Infineon is _opening_ its fab plant in Dresden this year which was supported by around 1bn euros from the EU equivalent of the CHIPS Act. They started building this fab in 2023, while TSMC, who started building its fab in the US right after covid just delayed the opening to 2027
The fab that Infineon is building is vastly smaller in scale, and their tech isn't really relevant to this discussion. For instance, it doesn't produce CPU/GPU microchips or DRAM. Also only 300mm wafer technology, which isn't competitive for anything except for some narrow industrial use-cases. Glad to see the EU is doing it, but it's a completely different thing.
Pretty much everyone is on 300 mm wafers for everything now, and has been for a while. Are you perhaps reading this as 300
nm process (which would usually be called 0.3 micron)?
But in the context of what we are talking about it's still true that nobody in the EU is making cutting edge CPU/GPU/DRAM and there are no plans to do so either (including that Infineon fab).
I could spend $1,000s on tokens asking an agent to build (some semblance of) Sentry, or New Relic, but why would I bother? I have real work to do in the near-term, and I'm happy to pay for services that help me do it.
All the hard work is always chasing down edge cases, scaling, operational issues and other things that don't show up the user-exposed features. And talking about features, the innovation in coming up with them, or iterating on making them work with real customer experience is a ton of value, even if copying the ideas that work later is much easier - which is why I generally prefer betting on an innovator with just of enough traction to show they can stick with it. The best category leaders both innovate and steal/copy/buy all the innovation they aren't producing in house to maintain their lead.
It's a bit vague, but the idea is right. If your SaaS is built with AI, then any customer you have can also build it with AI, and whatever they build is going to be better suited to their needs and will run cheaper because they aren't paying your margin. AI skews the build vs buy curve massively, because it makes building so much easier
You don't tell agents to build this stuff from the ground up. Someone builds an open source tool, and you get your agents to deploy and customize it. The plumbing and groundwork is already laid, you're just detailing.
Which is a funny outcome of this because apparently the AI agent (Claude) tried to talk him out of doing some of the crazy stuff he wanted to do! Not only did he make bad decisions before invoking the AI, he even ignored and overruled the agent when it was flagging problems with the approach.
reply