This definition is sloppy. If I buy a tacky "In this house..." sign and place it in my yard, I am using my financial resources to influence policy. Restricting that by law would be a disaster.

I think a better point could be made about the relationship BETWEEN financial resources and political connections. We should seek policies that limit the extent to which financial resources can easily buy political connections. This can be done by placing restrictions on public servants instead of restrictions on the public.

Of course, you're never going to totally remove the connection without totally destroying freedom of association.

At the least, it means these particular compounds aren't quickly breaking down into ever-smaller nano-particles that can be absorbed into living things.

We are not talking about a properly configured Windows workstation. We are talking about corporate PCs configured by an IT department that is completely oblivious to the needs of developers, most likely because developers are not their bosses. WSL is effectively an escape hatch.

Usually the stated reason is "security", and developers tend to do the greatest sin of corporate security: they run arbitrary code, and they even have the nerve to call it "their job"!

I don't work in corp IT, but I am convinced that people there are not stupid and they are fully aware of the "shadow IT" aspect of WSL, but they give it a pass because they are also aware that people have "real work" to do that would be impossible otherwise, given company policies.

If the software can be switched to a rented or purchased hardware (I do not want Cloudflare's offering) then it is "self-host-able" IMO.

I think there are open source Cloudflare alternative hosting software.

They want you to believe it's not possible to restrict them so that you don't try.

I asked them to do a thing, but didn't intend the obvious consequences* so it's not my fault they occurred.

A bad manager takes personal credit when things go well and finds a scapegoat when things go bad. A good manager gives credit when things go well and takes responsibility when things go bad.

It's wrong to scapegoat the agent. You, the human who executed the agent, made the decision to execute it. You gave it credentials, and set up insufficient guardrails. Don't scapegoat the agent for your poor decisions.

Likewise, it's good to have humility when you get great results out of agents. Yes, the agent made the good results happen. It's OK to tell people that your choice of agent is amazing and did an incredible job. In any half-decent work culture, that should rub off on you as well.

I think your question would make sense if these were the only two reasons. Someone who just wants to make sure their old games can run would see these tools as a good thing. People who just enjoy reverse engineering by hand wouldn't care this exists, or maybe even, a helpful tutor.

So perhaps then, the sentiment being as negative as it is, is revealing something about the hobby: that many participants, considered the metagame of being the first to do it, to be "smart enough" to have figured it out, the "street cred" if you were, is what they are lamenting, but they just either lack the words, or aren't being honest with themselves.

I'd post the link to the source but of course all attribution has been scratched off the video and the first level of overlays.

For me this is the biggest complaint about some games where instead of making a player think what to do and how to navigate game, player basically gets "click her" "go that way" "click that" "congrats you won"

so i think this is the parody aspect of this minesweeper.

Cant imagine current AAA games allowing player to be stuck for days trying to solve the problem like good old times of monkey island or leisure suit larry

But do we all get that the consequences for this irresponsible behaviour are part of this test?

When there are none, they gradually normalize their naughty robot scamps running around the internet, breaking into other companies or servers run by foreign governments.

This is part of the value AI companies need to convince you of - not just that mistakes by AI products are normal, but criminal behaviour is normal, that their computer will always get a pass.

Sam Altman said yesterday "we believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology" - and this an AI company pushing the boundary, continually trying to make you accept those bad things as normal.

At any point we could choose to treat AI companies themselves as the actors behind this activity. We could enforce the laws that these hugely well-funded companies are choosing to break. Until we harm their financial viability, or threaten their executives with jail, this will keep happening.

From what I have seen over the past thirty years, the vast majority of programmers are generally not interested in "originality". They might even challenge the very notion that software can be "original"; certainly I've seen this perspective in HN comments over the years. These programmers are eager to copy and may even pride themselves on fast they can do it ("implement" a preexisting idea used by someone else)

Even more, culturally, these programmers are generally not fond of other programmers who operate in their own, "original" way. There is a gross amount of peer pressure to conform to "convention" for lack a better term. By and large, they conform; independent thinking is not popular

There are a small number of programmers who elevate programming to an art form. But this is not the majority and these individuals are not representative of programmer behaviour in general

NB. I'm not arguing for or against orginality, utilitarianism, etc. Everything has its proper place. I'm just drawing attention to a frequent difference between programmers and artists

The internet itself seems filled with the AI maximalists who have no end of hype for the latest prompt 'technique' or AI doomers that would skin you alive if you mention you used AI to make a photo once.

Quietly among peers I talk to there seems to be a very different group that exists: those that recognize AI is super valuable for getting a lot of work done but also feel that suddenly the work is so much less exciting than it was before.

Sure, there's the obvious "I enjoy the mechanics of programming" component that's gone but then there's also this general feeling that is hard to shake which feels a little deeper. I've wondered about it. Is it all the layoffs? The suddenly shaky economics for a lot of our companies? The uncertainty of the career's future in general?

I think the author has put their thumb on it well to describe it as a lack of intellectual community. That feels like at least part of it.

You can't see ideas as some isolated objects that can come into existence on their own. The overall ecosystem breeds the ideas. The forces of demand create the supply chain. Human need funds the solutions. Peace times, plenty of food give the time and effort needed for inventions. If Europe has all the science going on in the 17-19th centuries, it is not because only Europe has best minds. Europe has the people with free time, food and riches to afford the science work.

You can't ignore the overall context of the world around you. You can't keep selling infinite ideas. You can't feed infinite amount of sugar to a person. The so-called solutions can turn toxic, dangerous, and unwanted things. Some ideas might be just be a package of problem and solution packed together. When you buy the solution, you receive the problem as well, which didn't exist earlier.

There's no way I'd imagined it wasn't done in a professional setup by a full team.

A real standout part is how he commuted by bus to the studio for years, to work on it mostly alone. Truly amazing dedication to a passion project.

I haven't watched it in probably 25 years but I'll find it now and appreciate it all the more for knowing this!

I’m particularly proud that the cryptography project is already shipping a single abi3.abi3t wheel for each platform on Python 3.15 or newer. The GIL-enabled build and free-threaded build can both use the same wheel now, because PyObject is opaque.

If you want to learn more about this, I gave a talk at EuroPython this year on Python’s ABI and the road to building and releasing abi3t today. See https://youtu.be/An8lO29SxXE.

It says:

> In sum, while the embedded “real” video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error. And on this record, the judge’s consideration of the AI video so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.

Which is more or less; "AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.".

If creation of customized software solutions is consistently getting cheaper and good enough in quality, the near future is about creating much more custom solutions for considerable smaller customer or consumer groups.

Mind that we still need people who understand tech and verify that a system does what it claims to do, in a safe and efficient way. Every non-technical vibe coder will at some point realize, that he maybe can prompt away every problem he has, but that is still considerable effort and also includes all the mistakes a professional already eradicated from his habits. Many vibe coded projects will also collapse under their own weight, rethinking a strategy - with tech in mind - is also professional effort.

Even if LLMs would produce perfect, high quality code all the time, instructing the "perfect" prompt is still a human problem. LLMs cannot mind read and fully understand the environmental and social circumstances. Understanding these things and model them into solutions, are also human problems.

All this still requires profound technical knowledge, even more now considering security is under fire.

Oxide are so good at comms.

And if an american, whom ICC have found guilty on crimes, visits a country which upholds ICC rulings they should be arrested, no?

Nobody talked about kidnapping people in the US or doing anything similar. In contrast, the US is in a habit on (among others)

1. kidnapping

2. bombing

3. otherwise assassinating

4. sanctioning

5. demanding extradition (the only actual "legal" part)

foreign citizens that they do not like. We can also say that no other, non american citizen has actually agreed to these practices either, nor to US authority to be the world serif. So these arguments more like read like monopoly of global violence/authority than "sovereignty".

  My wife asked me why I was carrying a gun in the kitchen
  I said "Rogue AI"
  My wife laughed
  I laughed
  The toaster laughed
  I shot the toaster