tgsovlerkhgsel

Interesting point, overlooking the biggest part:

"It built a machine that turns valuable things into free things, and then pointed it at the businesses it needed to stay alive. That isn’t a revolution."

It is a revolution. Free models are out there. The "toll booths" (software companies) might not survive, but if that's the case, that is the revolution: Because something that you had to pay a massive "toll" for is now essentially free. That might not help the AI companies but it will be a revolution for everyone else that had to pay the tolls, likely making everything cheaper and everyone better off.

(Yes, everyone. Even a very poor person in a highly developed European country lives better than a mildly rich person before the industrial revolution, and I'd say the average person lives at the levels even royalty could barely dream of.)

Even if this bites the AI labs and they don't survive, building software is not going to become significantly more expensive than it currently is with free models that are being sold at cost (barring something major like a global nuclear war), mainly because you can always continue to run the existing models on existing hardware even if progress were to magically stop.

TL;DR: Your MCU likely doesn't have enough space to dedicate so much of it to a full CA store, so it is unlikely to trust those CAs (claims the post).

So many words for such a simple point/claim...

But only by browsers. curl, autoupdaters etc. would still all accept them.

They have been shocklingly competent for international transfers. Most things just work through the app, and the few cases where I had to deal with support it went so smoothly that I assumed the support agent was bullshitting me and I'd hit a wall later (I didn't). Exactly the opposite experience of what I'd expect from a "neobank" and much better than "real" banks.

Even the KYC process the first time I was making a larger transfer was surprisingly smooth.

Currency exchange fees/spread with "classical" banks are absolutely prohibitive.

I've seen semi-hidden advertising for GLP-1 drugs in the form of "you wouldn't blame people for being sick, so don't blame them for being obese and start treating obesity like any other illness".

I don't know why this sits so wrong with me - the message itself is legit but it's clearly GLP-1 advertising (the campaign isn't hiding that it's run by one of the GLP-1 companies). Maybe because overt advertising would be illegal in the countries where I saw this?

That would be a very convenient way to fix the trade balance that Trump is so obsessed about...

Install uBlock Origin and don't whitelist any sites. The default filter lists break almost nothing, only once you start including the "annoyances" lists etc. do you start running into significant breakage.

Without an ad blocker, they will be exposed to such an amount of social engineering (ranging from dropshipping sites, to subscription scams, to scam shops that don't ship at all but steal your CC data, to fake sites for government services, to attempts to trick you into installing malware) that you can't expect them to resist it. If installing uBO seems hard, resisting this or cleaning up the consequences is harder.

The amount of "hey have you heard of this great new product I saw" <photo of a handwritten note of the content of a scam site> went down from weekly to near zero once I got a relative to use an ad blocking browser.

1) Of course, although you probably aren't worth a zero day.

2) Adblockers

Also, society/law is willing to let them do it/get away with it, rather than holding them responsible.

> It completely upsets the economics of content management

Exactly. It moves the economic incentives from "serve the ads from the highest bidder and turn a blind eye to the fact that that's a scammer/malware" to "drop an ad platform that can't or won't keep the scammers/malware out".

Or even better, refusing to use ad platforms that let the ads serve arbitrary code. There is no strict reason why an ad can't be an image (re-rendered by the platform) and a link. Slapping scripts all over the place just makes it easier to collect data (among other things to verify that all the companies involved in serving your ad aren't cheating you, because the ecosystem is full of scammers in all directions).

The deterrent here would be prosecuting the accomplices involved in, and directly getting paid for, the crime.

At least the versions I remember had a really bad UX for marking keys as trusted.

The correct operation for (even locally) marking "this key belongs to person X" is signing the key. Marking it as "trusted" indicates "this key is a CA that can create statements who other keys belong to", but it's easier to find/"understand".

So if you haven't first studied the details of the security model and terminology, you just start increasing the trust level on the key of your communication partner until the warnings go away, not realizing that by doing this, you've made that key a CA and the reason the warnings disappeared is because you now trust the self-signature (in addition to all other signatures the key issued).

Most of the world isn't perfect, and trying to be perfect means you get nowhere. In most places, excessive perfection is implicitly avoided through resource constraints.

In the end, what matters is whether something fulfills its purpose, not how it does it. Code quality, understanding code, etc. are just a means to this goal.

Some level of poor quality is acceptable, and I assume they are hoping that model development (i.e. its capability to fix and clean up an increasingly convoluted mess) will outpace the tangledness of the code.

So far, it seems like they are winning. Yes, the UI is often broken (e.g. for a long time switching away from an ongoing conversation lost it), but it wasn't broken enough for people to switch to other companies that may have had a better UI but in exchange for that a less developed product. If Anthropic instead spent its resources on making the UI not janky and code reviewing everything, the overall product would have likely been worse because they couldn't build and improve features as quickly.

I've seen the flip side where "code quality" becomes its own independent goal and more time is spent gratifying various linters than writing the code, and the inability to get anything done in such an environment is a lot more depressing than janky UX that can probably be fixed by prompting the next generation model to clean it up.

The distraction hiding feature is interesting. Does it work automatically or is it essentially just a way to create a custom adblock list?