> But that's not to say that they wouldn't be capable of adding safeguards on their end, not even on their MCP layer. Adding policies and narrowing access to whatever comes through MCP to the server and so on would be more assuring measures than what their comment here suggest around more prompting.
This is certainly prudent advice, and why I found the GA example support application to be a bit simplistic. I think a more realistic database application in Supabase or on any other platform would take advantage of multiple roles, privileges, Row Level Security, and other affordances within the database to provide invariants and security guarantees.
I don't share your thoughts on the passage you're specifically referring to. It seems pretty anodyne to me.
"I think it's pretty uncalled for to lump them in with "flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths"
I don't share that view, either, but I also don't think they were lumping things together. They were giving examples to answer a specific question I had asked.
"From my perspective they're engaging in a theoretical pursuit and you're just taking a dump on them."
You're entitled to your perspective, just as I'm entitled to my perspective that yours is overblown.
"Are you ignoring them?"
Like many things, that's a matter of degree. I'm mostly ignoring, though not so much that I won't occasionally engage the subject on HN.
"I also don't feel the need to demonize them."
I'm not aware of anyone here who's doing that
"Couldn't you just say, "Interesting concept. I doubt it works out for cosmic background radiation, but would make for a cool Star Trek episode". Or just say nothing?"
I could, but I won't, because I don't consider MOND and MOG to be interesting concepts. Why do you want me to say that I do?
"Why do you have to accuse them of being small-minded, simplistic thinkers who are really just motivated by being too dumb to understand the current meta and not unlike harmful idiots that earnestly believe space is just government propaganda and viruses aren't real?"
I'm not.
"I don't think we were talking about what people should be penalized for by the government."
We're not talking about that at all. That's a non-sequitur. I was just emphasizing that what people can do and still be considered reasonable is a matter of personal judgement. It's a matter of personal judgement if I want to scorn the MOND and MOG people. I don't, but I could if I wanted to.
I DON'T scorn them, but I do largely ignore them. I'm ignoring them even now.
"problematic" is a matter of degree, and is relative. Inflation is less problematic than some theories (e.g. "magic"). Are there any alternative theories that are less problematic than inflation, and yet also solve the same problems that inflation solves?
People and scientific instruments are made of "normal" (non-Dark) matter, which makes it easy to detect other "normal" matter (electrons, protons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, what-have-you). It's hard for us and our instruments to detect or even be aware of Dark matter at laboratory scales, which operate over the electromagnetic and nuclear forces which Dark Matter feels little or not at all.
At astronomical scales, however, things are different. At those scales, gravity wins out, and is one of the dominant things we observe in astronomy. Dark Matter may not feel the electromagnetic and nuclear forces the way normal matter does, but it feels gravity the same as every other particle does. Nobody gets a pass from gravity, not even Dark Matter.
Consequently, it's relatively easy to observe the gravitational effects of Dark Matter at the astronomical scales of the rotation of galaxies and the dynamics of galaxy clusters, even while it's difficult or impossible to observe the non-gravitational effects of Dark Matter at laboratory scales.