kseniamorph

don't undervote me....it's a joke

It's worrying because it feels like a loss of control. But there must be control. And this what responsibility is. You should worry only about people who don't understand responsibility, not AI-inspired ones

Co-author here. We collected 90 public signals from employee reviews and social media describing the organizational impact of post-acquisition cost extraction at CDK in the year before the attack. The question we’re interested in is the following: does the PR ownership model inherently increase cyber risk? This is what we see based on the data, but we found little to no research on this topic. Has anyone seen credible academic or industry research on PE or LBO-style ownership as a cyber risk factor specifically? We could only find adjacent work (PE portfolio cyber surveys, PE healthcare studies) and would value pointers to anything we missed.

> nothing but thieves! cool band btw

wow, not bad result on the computer use benchmark for the mini model. for example, Claude Sonnet 4.6 shows 72.5%, almost on par with GPT-5.4 mini (72.1%). but sonnet costs 4x more on input and 3x more on output

given specification approach: personally i found it useful in some cases to write preceding block-comments for functions. you can describe the desired behaviour there, input/output types, etc. you can even make a skeleton from comment blocks and run one-shot generation. but this approach is especially useful in iterative development and maintenance.

i like how this research (and others related) kind of supports the idea that free will might be lacking. I still keep a pinch of skepticism about this idea, understanding that it's just a concept. But personally i like it, because it even fells a bit relieving... not to say that it helps you abandon responsibility, but it makes your stance on life easier, and pushes you not to blame yourself too much for your weaknesses.

they are seeking talent, not buying the product. this is a valid strategy for devs - just to attract attention no matter what.

Curious whether people here see value in this kind of research: using alternative public data to assess vendor risk before a breach, rather than after. We're aware that "we found signals before a known breach" is a weaker claim than "these signals predicted a breach we didn't know about yet." Is retrospective analysis like this useful to practitioners, or does it only matter if it can be made prospective?