madamelic

The women developers would like to cede this gender-neutral replacement back to the men, we don't want to be included.

/s

I absolutely love monster-in-the-middle. Big round of applause to whoever thought of that.

I am not following how someone snuck the files into the release.

All I read was that it creates a directory from the build file but seemingly no description how new files or added dependencies slipped by. Was `cook.pth` a dependency that got automatically downloaded from PyPI on install and then the build system put it into dependencies?

--

Leaving this for others:

> BerriAI’s private release pipeline built these wheels from an attacker-modified git source. The attacker could have used a compromised maintainer or bot credential, a private branch or mirror, or the reference the pipeline builds from. A stolen PyPI token used from the attacker’s own machines fits the evidence less well.

Makes sense. It was that a maintainer or the private pipeline was attacked and the malicious dependency was injected there by squatting on the maintainer's local copy rather than the dependency being hijacked for everyone. Very clever.

Don't forget blocking paste!

It baffles me why so many sites block paste on bank account number inputs like it is 1995 and we are typing it from checks.

Precious metals stop being precious metals once asteroid mining begins. I don't think it will be super soon but I could certainly foresee it being a thing within 10 - 15 years which is about 2 - 3 generations of satellites from my very brief Google.

It's wild that I didn't even realize it didn't say precess until I saw your comment. Brains are weird.

It absolutely drives me up the wall when I hear someone wrote their own language or framework because "the current ones just didn't do what I wanted to do" and then the result is a worse language/framework that the LLM and person know.

I absolutely endorse new creations when they are necessary but the people making these aren't doing it from a point of education, they are doing it purely because _they_ don't understand the framework or language that is the standard for that area.

It always always always involves a high level of AI Psychosis, that a brand new web framework is needed for your revolutionary... CRUD app?

That is either an old story or you are on v12 because mine used to do it often and I haven't seen it in at least a year from my recollection. The newest versions are really good.

Waymos aren't without fault either, they smash the front off cars, run into static poles, block emergency vehicles, etc; just the nature of AV development.

It really radicalized me on the "Programmers don't understand [x]" series of articles.

A lot of problems would just be solved by trust-but-verify information. If a user wants to put non-sense in a text box, that should be a 'them problem' but a service that presumes all email address end in .com or that a user doesn't know their own address is worse. With that said, I understand why services do it because the Venn diagram of "will type non-sense into a field then wonder why it didn't work" and "will email into support and be the reason someone drinks" is largely a circle.

You are correct but I think previous comment hung on specific word you used: "semi-autonomous". What that would mean is a system that still requires attention / supervision. What I believe you meant is an AV that still has human controls but is capable of unsupervised driving.

If you aren't familiar with SAE AV levels, check them out. It is a common refrain that L3 AVs are a SUPER bad idea because they would be 99.9% perfect at driving but could still mess up so 'drivers' of them would become too trusting and minimally attentive which would cause accidents.

The common thing is that L3 needs to be skipped entirely so a car should either be L2 and wouldn't be good enough to drive entirely on its own for long periods (lane assist, low speed traffic jam chauffeur, etc) or L4+ where the car can drive on its own but if conditions degrade where it can't continue it is capable of finding a safe spot to stop rather than aborting in the middle of driving suddenly.

The controls vs no controls isn't really an argument. Like you said, it will basically be fine either way if the system is sufficiently advanced especially if autonomy can't be disengaged while moving.

> Haven't wealthy people spent most of history paying someone else to drive for them?

My understanding is that it is a legal and safety liability for them to drive. The driver is employed by and the car is owned by a company that the wealthy person founded and pays so if the driver hits & kills someone, the company gets sued for a bunch of money then the liability can be discharged in bankruptcy / isolated to the company's coffers rather than the wealthy person's.

It's the same gambit as their security. I am sure more than just Gates and Musk do it but I know that both of them own personal security companies who only provide security to themselves. It's all just shells of liability shielding.

Another consideration that needs to be made before tossing out private transit because "public transit is better" is not all people are able bodied, able, or willing to use public transit.

If it is 2am and you need to get home as a woman, it would be a no brainer to get in an autonomous vehicle while going on public transit is a bad coin flip on being harassed at minimum.

If you are wheelchair bound and the elevator is broken, wheelchair ramp is broken, or someone is already using the wheelchair spot, you just have to wait for luck to change.

If you have sensory difficulties that make public transit uncomfortable, private transit is always the better option.

The list goes on for many reasons and people that having only public transit would harm. The idea we can get rid of or otherwise push out private transit marginalizes everyone who isn't prototypical nor should we hand-wave that they can just rely on runs-on-other-people's-time disabled specific transports to get them into city centers because private transport isn't allowed in.

I have been playing with something similar and I see these types of projects all the time. My criticism of things like this is that they seem to rely heavily on the ~*~magic~*~ of LLMs to do everything and try to paper over gaps with major hand-waving on everything beyond "agents do everything" when in reality, the most critical part is agents NOT doing much and relying on 'boring' deterministic backbones in an automatic fashion.

A good version of this kind of system would be pushing as much LLM magic out of the core and having solid internal tools that personas/agents _happen_ to have access to. So rather than having one big messy ball of ~*~magic~*~ where it burns tokens trying to invent strategy and keep track of every thread via memory, you have a few personas that manage specific tools to gather information about the world and outlay of the company. Inside those specific tools/platforms, you can have ~*~magic~*~ to do things deterministic code can't while still keeping the magic halves of CMO and copywriter separated by a deterministic concern-specific platform so structure is consistent and enforced by strongly typed code.

The model I think many go after is a strong monolith when the idealized 'autonomous company', in my opinion, should be decentralized and largely tool-driven rather than agent-driven along with not re-inventing the wheel / pushing third-party integrations out to the edge or later in the roadmap. It's a lot easier and better to just write an MCP against Linear than re-inventing the wheel on a todo app basically.

Let me know if that is your design because whenever I look at stuff like this, especially the broad promises of an autonomous company, all I can think about is just a slop factory that produces even worse slop the longer you run it due to agents running away and inventing new things.