oefrha

> Related posts: Cursor earns AIUC-1 certification for agent security and reliability

The irony.

Being acquired for $10B by $1T companies.

It is, but if you send more efficient deltas, batch packets more intelligently, and introduce non-blocking UI tricks, the experience can be improved by quite a bit. mosh demonstrates some of that.

Supports SSH to remote machines out of the box, cool. I wonder if the protocol is more efficient than the TUI over SSH, would be nice on crappy connections when traveling.

On the other hand, sometimes you get randomly banned due to someone else’s action on the CGNAT IP. Wikipedia is an obvious example.

Reminds me of that stupid DJ demo of the touch bar. Did any DJ actually use that in practice? Well if they do they better hold on to their now vintage MacBook.

I’ve seen this terrible mix of sans serif and serif italics in titles from /frontend-design one too many times. What the hell is with that?

Not if you realize the real threat to be solved is threat to shareholder value.

OpenRouter and other inference providers won’t be able to openly host the models, for starters. That should cut most (or at least a significant share of) non-local inference, and local inference only works with smaller, less capable models, plus the hardware is hella expensive when you don’t have scale to saturate.

In addition, most companies don’t want to be in a position where a disgruntled employee can report them to authorities and rack up massive fines or worse, even if it’s hard to tell from the outside.

For flexing muscles and advancing U.S. foreign policy goals abroad? Doubt it.

This is a server that allegedly has some BTC on it (AFAICT it’s just a claim made by the website itself, zero corroborating evidence), definitely nothing else valuable, and likely has a lot of monitoring to capture whatever exploit you send, and with a less-vulnerable-than-usual setup. Unless you’re really desperate for the money and want to take a gamble on the server having the not very meaningful bounty it says it has, it’s strictly negative value compared to the average production php server that’s still unpatched. If I have a working exploit I’m mass deploying against everyone, I too would skip this one, similar to how mass market malware tends to disarm itself when it detects security research tooling.

No, I don’t think actual working exploit is trivial either, but people are wayyyy overselling this stunt in this thread.

Yep, gotta really mind the language, sometimes saying something like “when implementing <foo> feature you gotta pay attention to <bar> to avoid <baz> attack” is enough to trigger it, along with a cache miss of 300k tokens in the downgraded request to rub it in. Frustrating.

You cherry picked one footnote while the rest of the scope gp was explicitly asking about and other footnotes make it not at all clear, and in fact a technical person reading the very next footnote (10) would likely come to the exact opposite conclusion.

> This Exclusion and Removal Order direct Federal civilian agencies⁸ to: (1) *exclude* DeepSeek, DeepSeek-affiliated entities⁹, and their products from civilian agency procurements,¹⁰ and (2) *remove* products provided by DeepSeek and DeepSeek entities, and third-party products and services developed using DeepSeek implementations, from civilian agency information technology systems.¹¹

> ⁹ For purposes of this Order, an individual or business is an "affiliated entity" or "affiliate" of DeepSeek AG if, directly or indirectly, either one controls or can control the other; or a third party controls or can control both. See 48 C.F.R. § 2.101 (definition of "affiliates").

> ¹⁰ To include third party implementations of DeepSeek used to provide products and services civilian agencies.

> ¹¹ Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 1323(c)(5)(A)(i), orders issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security would apply to civilian "information and communications technology," as that term is defined by 41 U.S.C. § 1321(5).

You do realize more than one person can be talking to you on a forum right? What the hell was "my original statement"?

Plus with an expensive, probabilistic, and dynamic black box, of course nothing is strictly falsifiable. By your logic nothing can be said about it. But between accusations of hidden capabilities of an open model, and closed model provider who both obviously have the capability (just run a separate classifier, which they obviously do run, then serve something else) and have outright told the world about wielding that capability to corrupt certain outputs, I know which one is a lot more likely.