https://opencollective.com/phpfoundation/transactions?search... and https://opencollective.com/php-foundation-eur/transactions?s...

(seems like "work" selects most of that)

And it's not cheap to pay that many people, especially not full time (which is partly why they don't have more full-time contractors). According to https://opencollective.com/phpfoundation#category-BUDGET they only have a balance $350k currently, sinking.

It'd be really awesome, if more companies would sponsor the PHP foundation (especially with thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per year. A lot of small contributions is nice, but not enough.). The work of a few core maintainers is really crucial to the continued development of PHP.

It's already happening.

> They are politically and societally paralyzed from building even basic things like datacenters which are essentially just industrial compute factories and the foundation for anything pertaining to data sovereignty and technology sovereignty.

No, they are not entirely blind to the consequences of this buildout and are trying to find a balance between environmental concerns and technological progress.

I agree that we should probably do more but to use words like 'societally paralyzed' is rather uninformed about what actual democracies look like.

edit: never mind, I just checked your comment history, this seems to be some thing that you are repeating over and over and getting the same kind of answers but you just keep doing it.

Europe would first have to invest "tens if not hundreds of billions" themselves in order to develop any viable replacements and that is very unlikely to ever happen.

They are politically and societally paralyzed from building even basic things like datacenters which are essentially just industrial compute factories and the foundation for anything pertaining to data sovereignty and technology sovereignty.

None. Explicitly banned. And, though I feel bad for saying it, I can't blame them. If some idiot roots their phone and downloads malware, the bank may be responsible for refunding them. I can see why they don't want that headache.

Some. App works, but some functionality is unavailable. I've got a credit card app which works, but refuses to set up virtual cards or use "remember me". That's good enough for my use. Similarly, I had a merchant account which let me see my balance, but I couldn't use my phone as a credit card reader.

Works, but only in main profile. I'd rather keep financial things in a locked profile. But lots of banks disallow that.

Full. Everything works (although you may need to toggle some exploit protection off).

Some banks are reasonably good at letting you pass on technical queries to their developers - mostly the smaller ones. The nice thing about the UK banking sector is that it is trivial to move banks. So I switched accounts to providers which worked with my phone and let the old ones know why I was moving.

Ironic for apps that are often so paranoid about "security" and "hardware attestation"

So as a hotfix I block this on my reverse proxy.

- Now, ty is integrated into uv, while ty is technically being part of ruff [1], but ruff is not integrated into uv.

- The formatter is part of ruff, but uv also have an undocumented "format" command, which does not produce the same results.

- Actually, ruff is integrated into uv, but you must call it through "uv tool run ruff".

I guess I'd like "uv format" and "uv lint" to become the standard commands.

[1] https://github.com/zed-extensions/pyrefly/issues/26#issuecom...

They could have just said uv now has type chancing capabilities (or whatever it is ..) ty afaik isn't a super popular brand so the post makes people first understand what ty is ..

Yeah, I gladly get some of the fruits of that work back!

Deliberately keeping all models ignorant doesn't make sense. It won't work (whoever breaks the pact has a massive advantage); it won't be enforceable; it will have downstream impacts on things you don't want it to be ignorant about; this kind of regulatory regime invites adding more and more to the "no-no list".

Is it not possible to focus on hardening? And on new legal liabilities for operators who do security attacks?

Sure. The problem is that there is no practical difference between "cybercrime capability" and "cybercrime defense capability."

All of my PRs go through an adversarial security review by GLM-5.3, because it's the only smart-enough model with a good understanding of cybersecurity issues that won't regularly refuse the job. Removing that ability from frontier models helps nobody except cyber criminals.

First, how much “cybersecurity data” is just standard software knowledge that one can derive cyber security exploits from?

Did they also get rid of all references to hacking in general?

Are they implying that all the recent exploits are just things that were already in the data?

For a model it doesn’t seem that far fetched to make the leap from “I have the knowledge of what hacking is” and “I know how computer systems work” to just being able to exploit stuff anyways.

It is giving security researchers something they have always wanted in return for their silence. Another way to put it is bribery.

This shouldn't exist in the first place. There would be no need for it if Apple didn't insist on "we own all the iPhones, our users just get to tap at them".

If you could just unlock the bootloader, re-enable SWD and do what you want with an iPhone that you actually own, there would be no need for this restrictive program at all.

I agree with his point, and Clojure is my favorite programming language, but the computer itself is place-oriented. It runs on reading from and writing to locations in memory, and extracting maximum efficiency from it requires direct control over that memory.

If it really can replicate that low latency + that expressiveness on local devices, that's one heck of an accomplishment for "indie" AI.

Also, the trend of posting on HN with much more sensationalist title first, getting to the front page, then getting the title adjusted by a moderator should probably be penalized; how is 'most authentic ever' not a marketing term? (not just this post, but a bunch of posts recently got to frontpage by making unreasonable claims)

"~70% of the vulnerabilities Microsoft assigns a CVE each year continue to be memory safety issues" - Microsoft [1]

"We adopted Rust for its security and are seeing a 1000x reduction in memory safety vulnerability density compared to Android’s C and C++ code." - Google on Android [2]

This is also worth looking: https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/memory-safet...

References: 1. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/msrc/blog/2019/07/a-proactiv... 2. https://blog.google/security/rust-in-android-move-fast-fix-t...

Apple is not 'too big' for savvy customers to choose differently but all the Mag 7 tech companies are too big for regulation to be a 'way out'. They now all have 'Regulatory Compliance' divisions which are about compliance as much as the 'Ministry of Truth' is about truth. Instead they are filled with highly-paid former regulators, lobbyists and lawyers who use their inside knowledge to avoid, skirt or nullify regulatory impact.

Company strategies are now purposely designed at conception to be almost impossibly difficult to prosecute or enforce. It's been working so well over the last decade that when the size of the prize is big enough, mega-tech corps are increasingly willing to just overtly violate regulations knowing they can fight in court for years until the govt settles for a reduced fine that's less than the profit already made.

Seeing all these gives me the same energy of early days of jailbroken Android phones where one could become root and do whatever with the hardware… I stopped considering such tinkering because I got tired of finding those little tweaks and fixes on forums like xda every time something was updated. With the LLMs capable of automating that tool, I might find those old school way of mobile phones again…

I think this comment was just a popularist repetition of discourse from social media. In other words it's a "tiktok ahh take".

There's no reason for OpenAI/Google/Anthropic/etc to start other software businesses because "LLMs" will be the only software that anybody will ever pay for.

Why would you have a different "app" to do something when you can just do it all in Claude or Gemini or ChatGPT? We'll be there soon enough.