John Carmack is my spirit animal. I like reading his thoughts because they give me strange insight into the way he thinks "sideways" sometimes - even if I disagree with them, I always enjoy an outside perspective.
Well, that's potentially horrifying. I would love for someone to attempt this in as controlled of a manner as possible. I would assume it's possible for anyone using Google DNS servers to also trigger some type of metadata inspection resulting in this type of situation as well.
Also - when you say banned, you're speaking of the "red screen of death" right? Not a broader ban from the domain using Google Workplace services, yeah?
falsified paperwork is better than no paper trail in the event planes start falling out of the sky - spotting one moderate falsification could very well lead to further verification when it comes to investigations deemed important by the public.
My argument is primarily against commenters on HN who claim Firefox to be unusable, bug-filled, and then blame Mozilla for the current Blink-based browser apocalypse.
You feel that Firefox doesn't have a bunch of features that you would use - but those are not bugs. I recognize this is HN - where there will definitely be a higher percentage of power users, but an open source project not having the features you want doesn't make it a second-rate browser, it just means it would take more work for you to customize. Listing cred of having used FF in the Mozilla days is the same as saying Linux is second rate because you installed Caldera back when people were still scared of Y2K.
As a daily FF user - Firefox is great. And more users should give it a whirl, especially ones that haven't used it in a decade.
I've had this conversation at least three times on HN. I'm convinced anyone who says that Firefox has a thousand issues simply doesn't use Firefox. But, I'm always open to being wrong. Can you point out the specific issues Firefox has that make it a second rate experience?
Can you give some examples? Because personally, I don't remember any period where personal projects weren't normally hacked together, but my experience only goes back to the early 2000s. It would be interesting to hear your memories of it.
If senior management feels their destiny is not in their control, they're doing it wrong. The best management don't always have the most expertise - but the good ones have an uncanny ability to know when they should defer, when/who to consult with, who to trust, and what to delegate.
I agree with this article. But, I do think it's important to understand that these tools do have value - especially when learning. I also think a lot of the issues raised will improve when we can increase context length. Googling problems, and having obsolete answers from 2007 also slow down progress, but we're not saying Google is worthless for serving those results.
These tools will get better, and they will eventually allow the best to extend their ability instead of both slowing them down and potentially encouraging bad practices. But it will take time, and increased context length. The world is full of people who don't care about best practice, and if that's all the task requires of them - keep on keeping on.
Ironic that JPMorgan Chase demands suppliers improve security while neglecting basic practices, like crediting vulnerability researchers [1]. With 18% YoY profit growth in 2024 [2], they could easily allocate additional resources to drive meaningful industry-wide change that would benefit all of us.
Maybe the real issue is they choose to bring in lower quality suppliers that they deemed to be "good enough", instead of hiring quality, and building robust internal process to make sure the type of feedback is brought to the suppliers directly - with examples, and well thought out suggestions instead of this notice posted on the office fridge.
To me, this looks like a lack of will for financial commitment rather than an industry-wide plague that's impervious to the ultimate resource to fix nearly every problem we face - willpower and an increased budget.
I'm not an expert in embedded systems, but I do work on them at a very low level, and I can't be sure 100% of my code would differential from the RTEMS code base any more than libogs's. That doesn't mean they didn't do it - but the concepts behind Real Time Operating Systems in general are well known, and nearly standardized.
I'd be surprised if modding frameworks don't start popping up via reverse engineering efforts. Someones gonna get annoyed at having to manage inventory against limited carry weight, and end up in a 3 months side project. Respect to the modding community.
These comments made me realize my viewpoints surrounding this issue are heavily based on the American legal system being very binary, with the majority of tech companies going all or nothing. Appeal your way up to the supreme court, and pray for the all.
In this case, it feels like the two most likely outcomes both hurt us.
You're right. If there are methods to get creators paid, while ensuring unfettered access to all - it absolutely should happen. The legal system in America doesn't have a good track record of nuance, especially when nuance is necessary. My views come from the idea that the American legal system will either smite them into bankruptcy, or it will give them the precedent they need to exempt past violations, and carry on as usual.
You may not have found ways to make AI work for you in your workflows, but millions of others have. It's not perfect, but it's useful to everyone I know that has made a meaningful attempt to experiment, discarding the bad, and integrating the good.
At some point, we have to look at this pragmatically. To me, it's not about FAANGs getting over on the every man, it's about making sure we maintain the opportunity of playing on the same field, with the same resources.
When Roger Bacon discovered what Gunpowder was capable of, he kept it to himself - he thought that once the poor knew how to make gunpowder, the poor would make weapons to destroy them.
We cannot let that happen with AI technology, and it is a very difficult conversation when we're talking about technology that has already replaced likely hundreds of thousands of jobs in the form of extending the amount of productivity individuals can produce.
To you, this is a moral issue, and one I absolutely agree with at its core. But this is technology, in my opinion, has the risk of eventually triggering a form of social stratification. The focus should be on keeping the technology ubiquitous, accessible, and unrestricted.
It seems that most people on this site believe that this is a good thing, but all this restriction would mean is that for the next while - the only companies able to afford mass licensing would be in the SPY 500, and that's assuming these companies wouldn't just flock to a nation outside of Americas influence.
At some point, it becomes a national security issue. This technology is going to be leveraged in ways we can't even dream up today. Copyright law needs to be re-imagined in a way that won't restrict advancement in AI, and AI-adjacent technology. It's not because we want to - it's because we have to.
Firefox+uBO on Fedora/W11 here, with Firefox being my primary browser for close to 8 years. I only run in to an issues maybe once a year, where I have to pop open Edge/Chrome for some random edge cases to work. I've used Firefox on dodgy, overly burdened and hacked together systems with no issues that were memorable.
The only problem I really remember is at one point Firefox having issues under linux when NVIDIA was swapping their main driver over to the "open-sourced" version, there was some performance issues with decoding, not unusable - but it was resolved within a week.