nahsra

Just FYI, "responsible disclosure" is a term that many people (like me) dislike because it carries judgment about the merits of public disclosure that are not at all obvious.

This term came from an era where companies or projects were disrespectful and dismissive towards security researchers. Those orgs were generally bad risk practitioners, and they coined the term "responsible disclosure" to mean "you send us the info and we'll do whatever we want with it, for however long we want, etc".

Many security people (like me) prefer the term "coordinated disclosure" as a way to indicate a practice where both discoverer and patcher participate in a good faith, communicative, and timely process to get things fixed for the community.

The difference can be summed up like this: if I report vulnerability X to company Y, and company Y sits on it for 3 years, that is not responsible. It is more "responsible" (especially today) to report it to the public, so they can protect themselves in a non-official-patch way, because the likelihood of bad guys knowing about it and exploiting it are approaching near-certainty.

These terms are obviously not super scientific, but I try to point out the history whenever it comes up.

I'd love to hear more about this!

I understand this instinct, but I can see the appeal of capabilities that are well within the limits of a well-designed agentic system.

Imagine asking such a system, "look at my postprandial response to dosing for the past week and make ratio suggestions for breakfast, lunch, and dinner." This is genuinely helpful, saves time, and well within the reasoning limits. You could spot check if you like.

Is it worth setting up such an assistant for the value you'd get out of it? I guess that's on the user and how many similar use cases exist.

Yes, but it's held up really well in my opinion! I use this piece constantly as a reference and I don't feel it's aged. It reframed Anthropic as "the practical partner" in the development of AI tools.

Gene editing is still pretty crude in terms of delivery.

Just because you can hit some germ-line cells in the liver, for example, doesn’t imply you’ll have good penetration into the reproductive organs.

We can’t zap people and change all their DNA at once, unless we can intervene at the point it’s just a few cells.

It won’t fly under the radar when this technology actually works. The FDA actually has warned, IIRC, that there’s a bunch of charlatans selling stuff that doesn’t work.

OP lacks imagination for sure. This would reduce infections, prevent compression lows, be more discrete and potentially increase accuracy.

In no way would I describe CGM as solved, and this would go a long way towards filling many of the gaps, especially in younger / older / less compliant patient populations.

Grit looks cool! My apologies for the omission, I was unaware of it. I could have anchored too hard to the word "codemod" in my searches. Your tool looks awesome!

> Do you have an example of how you inject context into the codemods?

When you say "context", I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing, and the question makes me think we're not there yet. We're basically saying that storytelling about the changes is very important, so we bake invariance into the APIs of codemods themselves, so codemod authors are forced to provide descriptions, reasons, justification -- whatever -- at the key points.

This was certainly true in the past from my understanding of the history before my time.

Most terms are pretty standard now. And most of them have good reasons for existing — usually to align the founders and investors. Just because a term is complex and could benefit the investor doesn’t mean it’s meant to mislead.

But, I’m interested in some examples that might shake my opinion about up!

So many common, important problems (and soul-draining toil) can be resolved with codemods -- this piece (which I authored) tries to explain how and why. I am eager for feedback from HN!