localuser13

>not really appealing to vegetarians or meat eaters

Why not? I'm a vegetarian/vegan for a long while now (I started during covid) and I enjoy fake meat burger or as protein in my meal once in a while. Same goes or my girlfriend. I assume most (ethical) vegetarians are in the same boat. I am a former meat eater, I enjoy the taste of meat.

FWIW vegan meat substitutes are popular and getting even more popular here (EU country). For example all burger places and many regular restaurants have something similar on the menu. I avoid beyond though, it's always the most expensive option, without quality to justify it.

I am sceptical because AI companies, and anthropic in particular, like to overplay their achievements and build undeserved hype. I also don't understand all the caveats (maybe official announcement is more clear what this really means).

But yeah, if their model can reliably write an exploit for novel bugs (starting from a crash, not a vulnerable line of code) then it's very significant. I guess we'll see, right?

edit: Actually the original post IS dramatic: "Has Mythos just broken the deal that kept the internet safe? For nearly 20 years the deal has been simple: you click a link, arbitrary code runs on your device, and a stack of sandboxes keeps that code from doing anything nasty". Browser exploits have existed before, and this capability helps defenders as much as it helps attackers, it's not like JS is going anywhere.

Not really:

* It's possible - very likely even - that even if somehow P=NP, the fastest algorithm for any NP problem turns out to be something like n^1000, which is technically P, but not practical in any way.

* The proof may not be constructive, so we may just know that P=NP but it won't help us actually create an algorithm in P (nitpick: technically if P=NP there's a construction to create an algorithm that solves any NP problem in P time, but it's extremely slow - for example it involves iterating over all possible programs).

>I started giving to EFF about 10 years ago. It's pretty much the first and only organization I have regularly given to.

I'm in the same boat - not 10 years, but regularly, and a significant amount of money (for me).

I'm a bit confused now. Their post is absolutely not convincing (for the reasons you outlined - tweeting does not cost anything, and despite what they say they clearly get a lot of outreach there). I think I'll evaluate their achievements with more scrutiny before my next yearly donation.

Maybe, but this is not what they claim in their post. Their official reason is that the numbers are not working out.

And even if that was the reason, that doesn't make sense. They're an activist organisation, their goal is to promote their ideas to people that need to hear them, and twitter users need that more than bluesky users.

Btw. I login to twitter once every few months to share my blog post or report. That's not a political statement.

>My presence here has always been transactional when it benefited Germany. It will stay transactional when it benefits me.

Because you're not a citizen. When you become a citizen you get more rights, but also some duties.

Would you agree? I don't know your exact situation and I may assume things that are not true here.

>obtaining public data from the Internet

Like slurping my open source projects, while completely disregarding their licenses. In my case, I'm particularly annoyed by the violation of the spirit of *GPL licenses. So they're no strangers to abusing licensed code (in technically probably legal, but untested in court, ways).

This is just a personal preference. I strongly prefer to see the markup as I write it. I can't stand disappearing characters.

>National security and "public safety" carve outs need to be eliminated. So long as those exist, we have no right to privacy.

This is overly absolutist, or maybe idealistic view. National security and public safety IS more important than individual right to privacy. As an extreme example, if your friend was dying, you had a password to my email, and you knew that you can use information in my inbox to save that person i really hope you would do it.

In general I think that police with a court order should be able to invade someone's privacy (with judge discretion). I mean they can already kick down someone's doors and detain them for several days - checking email doesn't sound too bad compared to it, does it? I think they should also be legally obliged to inform that person in let's say 6 months that they did it.

The problem is that modern world is drastically different than the old world when you needed to physically hunt down letters. Now you can mass scan everyone's emails, siphon terabytes of personal data that stasi could only dream of, and invigilate everyone. This is something that is worth fighting against.

I'm not a lawyer, but are there any potential trademark issues? AFAIK in general you HAVE to change the name to something clearly different. I consider it morally OK, and it's probably fine, but HTTPXYZ is cutting it close. It's too late for a rebrand, but IMO open-source people often ignore this topic a bit too much.

The only "killer app" for crypto*currencies* is being a payment method. Not counting speculation. This is what they are used for right now, but the scale at which this happens doesn't justify their current valuation (even after recent losses).