For some reason when 2 different products communicate it's more impressive and antropomorphic and AGI and chic than the same model communicating with an instance with different context
What would be another example of Microsoft forking an OS program and slapping their name on it?
As far as I know MSFT started open sourcing some of their own tech just shy of a decade ago, but white labelling OS tech I haven't seen much, maybe WSL?
> What would be another example of Microsoft forking an OS program and slapping their name on it?
I'm not sure, but it's not what I said, so I'm not sure why you're asking me. What I said is that if you take out "vibe coded" from "Microsoft putting their name in total vibe coded slop that breaks every release and super bloated", you get something that they already do. I don't see anything about OS programs in that.
I got that too, and "creepy" is the same word that came to mind.
For one, the choice of child, is already creepy even if you refer to a pet as a child, but a software system as a substitute for childbearing, it reminds me of the claw cult, you can call it a company, a system, a project.
And calling it a daughter, man I don't even want to get into it.
> For one, the choice of child, is already creepy even if you refer to a pet as a child, but a software system as a substitute for childbearing, it reminds me of the claw cult, you can call it a company, a system, a project.
On the other hand, I feel like the obsession with childbearing (constant fear about birth rates, pressure on women to become mothers, etc.) to be a lot more creepy than someone having wholesome protective love for their pets.
I fully agree with you about the creepiness of software "children", but I can't really relate to the pet part. It's honestly weird to me when people just kind of think of their pets as like, non-human roommates or something, when there's clearly one entity that has a responsibility to care for the other one since they're dependent on them for food, water, and shelter.
That's a pretty silly argument to me. No other species uses toilets, wears clothes, or posts on Hacker News, but we don't treat those as arguments that we have to act like them in those ways.
>" Following your example, I might send the list an announcement whenever a new GNU program is written. That happens less often than babies are born, it does the world a lot more good, it reflects more conscious creativity and hard work, and some of the readers might actually find the information useful. Even so, I think most of the readers would consider this outside the scope and purpose of the list. Clearly that goes double for babies." -Richard M Stallman
I have a cat named Emacs -- I wonder how Doctor would analyze that?
With all respect for Mr. Stallman, he has faced consequences of his choice of being childless, and it has been quite distressing for him.
Recently he was campaigning against being banned (or not accepted as a speaker) from schools. At age 70 something it must be quite hard not to have children or grandkids, but for parents to block you from their kids is even harder. At least that's how I understood his focus on clearing his name and being accepted as a speaker in highschools.
AI slop and hallucinations are bad, but what your own human imagination is pulling out of your own human ass is so much more pernicious and intentionally slanderous and demeaning.
What proof do you have about anything you're claiming so confidently? Do you know him? Did he tell you that? Can you quote his own words, or at least cite your sources?
Uh, I think it has a lot more to do with the sexual harassment than being childless. Plenty of people without kids don't have this problem, and it's kind of silly to frame it as "well if he only had kids then he'd be fine..."
Yes, the sexual issues, harrasment or otherwise, are the reason he has trouble doing presentations in high schools.
The childless issue is what makes this so important for him personally, otherwise I believe it wouldn't have been so pressing a matter for him to engage in a crusade. It's his chosen way to engage with the new generation, and he has lost access to it.
It's incredibly creepy for you to so confidently make such accusations about his state of mind and problems and motivations without evidence. So what is it?
>The letter further asserts claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Adafruit accessed only information that Flux’s own systems made publicly available through a server misconfiguration
They vibe coded their system and it showed Adafruit something? Or showed some information with trivial prodding? Sounds like your average cross-tenant leak. Maybe showing more than intended or some caching issue. Many options some not really not fault of Adafruit.
Or someone found server.domain/path/subdirectory/resourceX and was like "shit, I was hoping to find resourceY but I can't find a link to it, I wonder if I just click in my address bar and change the X to a Y", and voila, resourceY is right there.
To some of us, this is elementary navigation. Like going up the stairs if the elevator is out. Often it's faster than waiting for the damn elevator, too.
To others, it's cybarrrr-criiiimeeee!!!!!!11111one
It has a name in the security industry, Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) [1]. Somewhat related to Path Traversal [2]. Unfortunately CFAA is very broad and can be (mis)interpreted in wild ways.
Continental Airlines had an active frequent flyer community. A student emerged as a legendary figure (think "Hunger Games") after she noticed that Continental announcement URLs were numbered sequentially, and a not-yet-released announcement rather unfavorable to current elites was there for anyone to read. Quite the brew-ha-ha. Continental retreated.
She was nevertheless welcome at a frequent flyer event hosted by Continental in Houston, where she beat me at poker.
I don't know the details of the case, but what they worded there is a textbook unauthorized intrusion and a naïve teenager "the door was open" defense.
Mind you there can be nuances, but that quote is like saying "I took their stuff, but it was poking out of their pocket."
No, it's more like "the door was open" in the context of a storefront. A public website carries an implicit invitation to visit, otherwise web browsing would be illegal.
I think people have a heightened reaction to threats based on the CFAA for "the door was open" circumstances because that law is so widely known for being used in threats against folks who were trying to ethically report things and in overly-aggressive prosecutions.
Of course, we don't yet know the specifics of this particular case, but I'm willing to lean towards the people receiving legal letters threatening CFAA action until there's more information.
It is bit grey area. You are evaluating something. Do some basic checks. Actually end up seeing something you should not. You stop and tell them to fix it. They then silence you.
Now it is bit questionable should you check things like this during evaluation or not. Strict legal reading probably not. With reasonable customer relations you thank them and put it on top of the priority list. Unless they clearly enumerated everything they got their hands on or tried to run more real scans.
Or it could be completely innocent like they asked for a list of all adafruit designs, and flux.ai sent back a list of all designs including some private ones, because their filtering is broken.
Or in your pocket analogy , flux dropped their wallet on the ground and walked away, adafruit picked it up and yelled "hey bro you dropped this"
One common fallacy of the NIH folk is that reinventing X package would take a lot of time.
But first, you will of course not remake every single feature, just the one you need.
And furthermore, when you code just one feature, you don't need to make any abstraction or additional function interfaces. So it's cheaper, and probably better integrated.
Another fallacy is that you'll make bugs and introduce vulnerabilities. Maybe, if you are a bad programmer, but you will also avoid a category of bugs where the vuln is introduced at the boundary of the integration between two different libraries that weren't designed to fit exactly together. (Many such cases)
Maybe from your IP block even. More common since you don't control that.
reply