You seem to have missed the point. This is intended to be more secure in a new world where exploits will be cheap to discover. The factors you mention won't keep people onboard if systems are compromised every day in too many ways for fragmented security teams to keep on top of.
People running WordPress don't have security teams. If they get compromised they blat the server, re-upload a fresh copy, update the plugin affected and apologise for the week of downtime.
I think this is too soon to call. No one questions whether AI can build things. We question whether they can build stable things that work as expected and stay online in the long run.
I too have seen a lot of comments asking where the products are. If you're now moving the goal posts to "stay online in the long run" you're gonna have to wait until there's been a long run to stay online in. Agents aren't that old yet.
The stability question is real but I think it's framed wrong. The issue isn't whether an agent can write correct code in a single session -- they can, and pretty reliably now. It's whether there's a human with enough understanding of the codebase to debug it when something breaks at 2am.
I run parallel coding agents on my own projects daily. The code they produce is fine. What worries me is the "just ship it" energy where nobody on the team deeply understands what got built. That's not an AI problem, it's been a problem with outsourced codebases forever. AI just makes it faster to accumulate code nobody fully groks.
Cloudflare probably has the engineering depth to maintain this regardless of how it was built. A lot of other teams don't.
This is foolish nonsense. An organized foreign army directing improvised missiles against your cities is very definitely conducting 'military action' and is a valid target for a military response.
Barring an attack on the US itself, the US under the current regime will never attack Russia. Whatever the kompromat happens to be, the President is completely bound by it.
The "kompromat" is the world's largest nuclear arsenal, some five thousand and change warheads, along with a delivery system that includes an HGV MIRV payload that can deliver a multi-megaton warhead at ~mach 20-something.
Their video recordings of Trump doing God-only-knows-what, on the other hand, appear to be working great. Ditto, the unreleased files hacked from the Republican National Committee's email server in 2016.
> This is all good advice but one thing it doesn't touch on is: which pen and notebook?
In what way could it possibly be relevant? Do you actually believe that the author could suggest a universally suitable pen and paper type? What if he'd had his best results with toilet paper, a sugar thermometer and a soot/diarrhea/lemon juice blend for the ink? Would his advice be any more complete?
The moment you lose sight of the habit and instead pay homage to paper and pens, its a fetish instead of a practical discipline.
You can't separate the tools from the craft. Practical disciplines aren't just about doing things but also doing them well. The title of the piece was "take better notes, by hand" so you know, the tools I think are relevent. And come to mention it, the "by hand" part needs some attention too, because one complaint I often hear is that typing is less fatiguing than writing longhand. Ergonomics plays a big role here -- you're not going to write anything at all if you get cramped up. So yeah, I think that the tools are wholly relevent to the idea of taking better notes.
Generally people don't write with diarrhea for a good reason. I think anyone suggesting positive results would be suspect.
> You will to explain to me how the concise note I scribbled a few moments ago would have been improved if I'd written it on a particular type of paper, using a particular type of pen and a particular shade of ink. Because on the face of it, your proposition is very silly.
Sure, if the type of paper was for instance toilet paper, it won't last for a long time. Usually with note taking the intent is to keep the notes for later, so if you want to archive your concise note for say 30 years, you might choose to write on something more durable.
> When power is concentrated to the government, the corruption is concentrated with it.
This is a hackneyed neoliberal fundamentalist myth.
If power is concentrated anywhere, it should only ever be in government - where it's answerable to the public electorally.
Governments become corrupt when they are weak, and turn to serving private interests rather than the public they represent.
Corruption in general is far more prolific and fruitful where government is weak (the neoliberal ideal) - which is one of the reasons corrupt private actors look to weaken government - for instance by undermining public trust in it or lobbying for its parasitization by private entities. Or by stuffing their acolytes minds with foolish neoliberal fundamentalist myths.
Interesting tangent. This is the first I've heard the term "neoliberal" but it feels like it's being used as a perjorative term for libertarians?
"If power is concentrated anywhere..." The libertarian ideal is that it is not concentrated anywhere, because power corrupts. Maybe neoliberals want power concentrated in some entity that isn't government, and that's what you are arguing against? I guess I better do a little research on this new (to me at least) word
> Something I don't understand: Why don't you buy used books?
To me this is like asking what's wrong with buying used underwear. You don't know anything about the paws that have thumbed those pages. I had a flatmate in my early twenties who would kick off every reading session by scratching his bottom - and then as he read, he'd sniff his fingertips as a focus aid. I am not kidding. But even if the previous owners haven't had repulsive habits, people still sweat, cough and sneeze, rummage obliviously, read naked with their books in their laps, or in their partners laps, put their books down to please their partners then pick them back up - do I need to go on? We have intimate relationships with books, and a second hand book has all the detritus of an intimate relationship with its previous owner. Then there's the yeasts, molds, mildews, weird stains - anything humidity, cooking smells, damp, rotten trash, dense flatulence, halitosis, disease etc has impregnated the pages with. There's nothing noble or romantic about that aggregate odor they all develop.
A better way of thinking about them is that they're like semi-digested bites covered in the dried belly juices of whoever hawked them back up. How hungry do you need to be? It's no different really to dogs tucking into vomit in the street. Each to his own, though.
Geez, I have issues with bent bindings and people who lick their fingers to turn pages, but you take it to a whole other level of grossness. You did forgot the common practice of reading on the toilet.
Why are we supposed to think it's normal to see videos on every page? Even where it's directly relevant to the current page, what's the justification in thrusting those 36.30mb on the user before they explicitly click play?
It’s a news site with a lot of auto-playing video. If you like that kind of content, great. If not, there’s lots of other websites with different mixes of content. I subscribe to the economist which has few videos and they never auto play.
But that’s a question of taste. 5mb of JavaScript and hundreds of tracking assets is not.
reply