ShinyLeftPad

> as if countless examples didn't prove that llms don't actually distinguish between your instructions and the data they read at your request.

That's what I wrote

You are under an illusion that prompt is treated as a different kind of input by the model, than data it reads.

You can build a 0$ fee system, but how are you going to finance its support, KYC to prevent mad ransom money laundering, etc?

Ironically then foreign adversaries target and hack you via wallet backdoors and such. And because it's such an "unseizable" currency, you don't get it back:)

It does sound like that now that I think about it.

Yep exactly. Broken from design stage. So that engineer were talking about is... Satoshi!?

> A native home for Claude Code, Codex and every coding agent. Every pixel is a file your agent can change. Close it, they keep working.

First two sentences give zero information what it does. Third one is useful but i think many harnesses do it?

Continuing:

> A new kind of agent workspace. Native and terminal first, with nothing between you and your agents. Every part of it is a plain folder your agent can rewrite, and every agent keeps running when the window is gone.

Okay, more of the same. Let's press on.

> Your agents run agents. And hear back.

> An agent hands work to helpers and keeps going. When they finish, their reports land in its input. No copy-paste between windows: herdr-core carries the messages.

Are there modern harnesses that don't do subagents/subthreads/whatever the same way?

---

There are some interesting bits but the vibed copy is for me offputting and a sign even the author might not understand what he made.

Broken by design?

If you follow that trail far enough it's whoever designed cryptocurrency, right? Because banks can and do reverse transactions as last resort.

Less than half is frozen then?

No, it's exactly why that works.

Criminals used to meet in person to discuss crime (because mail/phones can be intercepted) and meet in person to move cash. It was a hard limiting factor on what they can get away with. With e2e messengers and anonymous crypto both of those "issues" are fixed.

Do you know anyone who uses it for legit purposes? I don't. I bet you ban a coin like that and you kill orders of magnitude more crime revenue compared to .001% of honest users using it to send money home and save a few dollars on the transaction.

> the fact that the author, who clearly does want to socialise, would benefit from doing something outside of their tech bubble

I am not in SV and i don't have a single irl tech friend. OK, maybe just one.

Most of my friends would agree with me and with article author. One of them goes further and doesn't even have a smartphone.

IME techies very rarely have these concerns.

So I'm not sure who is in a tech bubble between me and all those people in this thread saying how the logic is illegitimate because the author doesn't go out (which I guess is a "fact" because they all know him personally lol)

compared to a future where the tech they use to wield this sort of power is not allowed to exist. or even to status quo.

they tout UBI because it's one more way to control.

Like cash except you can use it at crazy scale, so worse than cash when crime is considered.

Does a trading bot constitute a consumer? This is the same thing. Who launched the bot is the consumer.