_feus

Code is code, it's not a piece of art where we all can have different perspective about what it means or does, so from appsec perspective it doesn't matter who wrote it, just what it does. Also you seem to be interpreting "reading" as one would read a novel, but here "reading" is about finding and exploiting security flaws. So yeah, dunno what you are on about.

I have the opposite experience. After years in appsec and pentesting, I can read any codebase and quickly understand its parts, but I wouldn’t be able to write anything of production quality. LLMs speed the comprehension process up for me even further. I guess it comes down to practice, if you practice reading code, you get good at reading code.

The way I understand these schemes is that they require minimum balance way above what an average person has to be effective, but not sure. Would love a professional tax engineer/CPA opinion.

Not really, this sort of fame farming is what makes candidates stand out in infosec interviews. A bug in Google systems is good for his future career.

Maybe for simple cases sure yes, but for complicated sentences ability to map approximate/fuzzy meaning <-> words is super helpful, especially for ornamentation and ESL scenarios.

And LLM doesn't completely remove the "burden" of reading the dictionary to make sure the meaning is indeed fitting, but shortcuts the discovery by a lot. Also helps to learn new words, lol. I see it as a supercharged thesaurus.

IMHO this applies to all general research, one needs to be an utter monkey to copy LLM generated references without checking them first, so if anything, it trains critical thinking for free.

I absolutely agree with you. In the right hands, LLM is a teaching tool, and the calls to resist it are as dumbfounded as the calls to resist the chalkboard would be.

One of my favourite uses of LLM is the reverse-dictionary, for example:

Give me one Saxon and one Romance word meaning "to write".

Saxon (Germanic origin): scratch — Old English scrætan, linked to marking or incising.

Romance (Latin origin): inscribe — from Latin inscribere, "to write on/in."

Genius!

exactly, those damn traffic lights don't fit into cyclists' commute routine

Those are ad riddled sources by three obviously biased authors who each wrote books on the topic and stand to profit from a buy in, though.

Carlton Reid - "Roads Were Not Built for Cars: How cyclists were the first to push for good roads & became the pioneers of motoring", a book "whose very title is fightin' words" is basically a Mein Kampf of cycling. He also writes for DailyMail, which is famous for hit piece journalism and lack of credability.

Angie Schmitt - Right of Way: Race, Class, and the Silent Epidemic of Pedestrian Deaths in America, from which one reviewer quotes "The bigger challenge, Schmitt argues, is addressing the systemic racism built into cities". It is obvious to anyone who reads into this sentence that this is a woke bias.

Peter Walker - The Miracle Pill pushes the active lifestyle narrative, of which cycling is one.

While I think your argument only adds to the fact that cyclists are delusional, I have to agree that it is not a "cyclist" itself that is the problem, but halfwits both in cars and on bikes, with cyclists having a higher proportion of those.

and it will be something so trivial and obvious, those who were looking for it will be kicking themselves for missing it

this is curious, as cyclists are famous for not remembering what the traffic lights are for, or if there were any traffic laws the they are supposed to follow

What MCP is missing is a reasonable way to do async callbacks where you can have the mcp query the model with a custom prompt and results of some operation.

Why do cyclists need an injury attorney when motorists have insurance? Why are there so many attorneys offering this service? High demand? Is it because personal injury law is a well paying grift? Would any of these attorneys represent a driver if it was a cyclist fault? Much harder to collect from a private person than from insurance.

Thank you for engaging in an argument rather than just feeling attacked.

Cycling accidents definitely happen, and they’ve become a lucrative industry. Just look up "bicycle injury attorney" and you will see tons of ads claiming that they "have recovered over 50 million for bicycle injury clients". The market here speaks for itself. Of course, a reasonable person doesn’t set out expecting to mow down a cyclist, but accidents happen despite the traffic laws designed to ensure everyone’s safety, and, to follow your example, a 3 y/o toddler doesn’t need a license to ride her trike down the street, but there’s nothing in the law, aside from common sense, stopping the child from continuing down the street and joining a major highway. At least "a multi-ton piece of steel" is visible and moves at the speed of traffic.

What I don't understand, why is it accepted, that both pedestrians and motorists should "watch out for cyclists", yet there is absolutely no campaigns for cyclists to watch out for cars and pedestrians and to follow the law. The easiest solution, imho, is to make the requirements equal for all - if someone wants to use a public road, they should be licensed and insured.

Why, do cyclists in Phoenix don't run red lights and yield to pedestrians?

A cyclist can easily cause 1000s in damage by causing an accident with a vehicle, or simply by hitting a pedestrian. Mending a scratch is expensive even for cheap cars. An ER visit, even for a simple fall, can result in a hefty bill.

Since cyclist don't carry liability insurance, they likely have to be personally sued in court for damages, with all associated costs to both parties.

Are you claiming this is a fair responsibilities and risk distribution? How is it appropriate to "risk your own life" by breaking traffic laws on a public road?