spockz

Is it an issue for every package manager? In theory, yes, in practice no. Debian and arch etc have so many mirrors that it isn’t an issue.

That would actually be a brilliant treatment to give wedding bouquets! I’ve never heard of Cosmoline. Going to look it up. Thanks!

I purely intended to use it for review and architectural design given my bad experiences with Gemini coding. The bad experience stemmed from it getting stuck in loops and burning quota. The code quality when it worked was great.

I now asked Argon for a pretty elaborate review and it used only 2% so I will be giving it another shot.

Another thing that can be of influence is that for subscriptions, Google uses some proprietary idea of “work done” for the quota instead of simply how many tokens were burned. I can imagine that this heuristic is sometimes quite off.

I think it should classify as an escape or leak.

If one microVM can use the cpu in such a way that the registers can be used to communicate or exfiltrate/spy (the only difference being the directionality of the intent) by another microVM that is a leak on that microVM separation level.

I had to read this a few times. The difference is that with the OpenAI case there were two willing and determined parties, whereas the typical attack vector a microvm traditionally deals with is one malicious or compromised microVM trying extract data from another unwilling one.

I’m using the default anti gravity setup. 3.8 medium is my daily driver. This gets me pretty far. (Definitely not as far as Luna and Sol). When I ask the same question to Argon it is 50% of my weekly usage limit gone. So either the usage limit is really a lot smaller or somehow argon thinks a whole lot more even for simple tasks.

Im using pro on a discount. I got argon a few days after the release but the usage limits are worthless. Asking it for a simple review of a blog post blows through 50% of the usage limit. And in the limited experimenting I have been able to do because of that it also isn’t smarter than 3.8 flash.

For me it is that cmd+` only cycles between windows of the same app in the active desktop. It makes it hard to switch back to a window of the app that was put in full screen.

I get that that behaviour shouldn’t just be changed but I would appreciate it if there were another key combination that would allow cycling through all windows of an app.

Intelligence is a paid product so I cannot test it. I would say that code intelligence and proper refactoring support instead of scratching around what agents do now is the direct next step for IntelliJ.

And probably something to understand what your agents are doing and why. With which reasoning.

Otherwise also stay a damn good IDE. We still need that. My agents are floundering on our bigger codebases and only produce warts.

Not sure. They flagged it. I appealed and told them what I was doing and the flag got lifted with a sorry our bad.

> You must not attempt to extract protected reasoning through unauthorized access, reverse engineering, or circumvention of safeguards.

This is the only mention of reverse engineering on their ToS. It only applies to trying to reverse engineering their models not others.

Moreover, their ToS is all about protecting security and privacy, which is what I was using it for.

But why do we have such a (imho unfounded) desire to be a be able to open a file in a proprietary format from 30 years ago and expect to be able to edit it like nothing happened in the mean time?

If we care so much about that it actually looks the same after all that time, why is it not a pdf?

I’m so confused that anyone would get hung up enough about this to let it block a migration of this size.

In my efforts to reverse engineer the LG firmware to validate Gamers Nexus claims, I got a warning very quickly. I appealed that quickly and successfully.

Then I applied for daybreak blue and haven’t had any issues since.

It also a matter of phrasing. Say what you want to achieve not how if it is approaching defensive or cyber stuff.

Also state you are working on your own devices and software. (If that is the case of course.)

Yes that if reactive. But I think GP meant what their responsibility in this is given that they signed and thereby vouched for an intermediate ca that now has become untrustworthy.

But do those tools have to be directly exposed to the web at the same place the content is being hosted?

That you want your content to be readable from everyone doesn’t mean you want the admin interface to be available globally.