JoBrad

It’s about incentives. My company spends about 400k/month USD in both Azure and AWS (different workloads). When I ask my AWS team for help, I usually get actionable info, a separate standalone call (if the request warrants it), and a follow up from my TAM and Account Exec. Every request to my Azure team has basically been “here are some YouTube/MS Knowledge links” + let me know if you figure it out. Roughly the same spend on both platforms, and wildly different levels of helpfulness (and yes, we have an Azure EA).

Are the people on my Azure team smart? Probably. Are they incentivized to actually help me solve a problem? No. They’re obviously incentivized to increased my license spend.

Except this doesn’t impact VSCode at all, apparently.

I’m fine with that. I use a top-level directory for all of my code, and restricting extension access to that directory is a great idea.

I remember when Crowdstrike was all about mobilizing your spare computer to DDOS the bad guys.

My read was that the people who are getting fleeced aren’t paying enough attention.

The lede is certainly buried, but calling out an affected development toll on a tech site isn’t a bad call.

Pretty disappointed that Apple hasn’t pushed out an emergency patch to address this, though.

Apple seems like an odd company to lump into this group. Any evidence for this? I removed the cert using a CLI command on my Mac.

What do you use instead of containers?

It’s not really a different narrative, though: They started with the idea that the phone should be nearly all screen (which was very controversial at the time) and designed the software around that. No one had a UI or UX that was as fully committed to this idea as the iPhone, although they certainly got inspiration from others.

You’re right that Apple isn’t usually a first mover within a product segment. But that have a tendency to nail what they consider to be a better execution of that product.

I do this with a summary prompt + a JSON config. The config keys are the full name of the thing that gets commonly mistranscribed, and the values include a phonetic spelling of the name and a n "entity id" which is just the name of a markdown file that provides information about the entity, which the LLM can use to infer what should have been referenced if it's not clear.

My prompt is pretty simple:

    - Intro of the purpose (faithful, high-quality summaries of meeting transcripts useful for readers who did not attend the meeting)
    - Some basic rules
        - Summarize only what is actually said in the transcript.
        - If a speaker's name isn't clear from the transcript, describe them generically (e.g. "a participant") rather than guessing
        - If the transcript is a fragment or cuts off, say so rather than inventing a resolution
        - Only state a causal or explanatory link between two facts (e.g. why someone is absent) if that link is clearly stated in the transcript
        - Preserve relative time references precisely rather than flattening them. If a speaker says something will happen "in two hours" don't reword it as "today" or "same day"
        - Maintain the original voice and framing to keep original intent
        - Attempt to infer meeting attendance based on who actually spoke or was spoken to
        - Prefer plain, direct sentences over compound or clever phrasing
        - Respond directly with the summary. Do not preface it with phrases like "Here is a summary" or "Based on the transcript".
    - A preferred structure for the summary, with examples
    - An instruction to attempt correction of mis-transcribed words based on the included JSON configuration, but only if the certainty is high. If unsure, leave as-is, but add (spelling?) after the word to flag it.
    - The JSON config as a string.

I invoke this with a skill that can also update the JSON config if I identify new mistranscriptions, so it gets updated regularly.

It’s news because it still needs to be called out. Not everyone recognizes AI-generated content, but even if everyone did, calling it out serves a real social purpose.

I don’t think this is the right option: if the target were legitimate, then we would welcome this level of impact. But if our (US) partner countries had the option to declare themselves exempt from applying individual sanctions, that seems like a good escape hatch.

I think that’s just the frame peeking out from the case.

I used to solve this with the Authy desktop app, now discontinued. I firmly believe MFA shouldn’t live in your password manager (what’s the point of MFA, then?). Thoughts on MFA options?