There should be some kind of automated certification for git repos, where if the described install process does not complete on a default install of the most popular OS, the software gets a big red “does not work” label.

But we’re talking about a federal agency here, not local law enforcement. It’s been confirmed that systems they tried to keep secret exist for them to have direct access to traffic going through ISPs, so why wouldn’t they have set up something similar for wireless networks, that would eliminate the need to go through any corporate bureaucracy? To me it seems reasonable to assume that such programs exist without being divulged because it would be basically similar to what else has been confirmed to exist, and there’s a really obvious incentive.

Is there really any chance they don’t have direct access to data from the cell towers and actually need to do tracking by other means? I figured this was just a parallel construction type of thing.

Well why not just have recording off by default, and let people decide for themselves whether to break the law?

If it’s your phone it makes sense you should be able to record calls on it.

To be fair there’s all the shit with dollar denominated oil, SWIFT, terrorist regime change on countries that don’t want to play along, etc. It might not be based on any kind of fair exchange of value, but that’s not quite the same as the USD’s global reserve currency status being vibes-only.

p*rnography

Even media sites have to do this hiding from the algorithm shit now I guess

Didn’t they ban Huawei phones in the US

Seems like a shame that it is so difficult to get past the assumption that someone is representing a generic political agenda by deploying empty rhetoric rather than raising a disagreement with the specific thing they said they object to from their own perspective.

Could you distribute such programs in a way accessible to nontechnical users? I think most people will just nope out the second they’re asked to type anything into a terminal. Not to say it’s a bad idea, pretty cool concept regardless.

Cool style of tutorial where it points out places it’s necessary to do something different from the readme instructions

Laptops let you run arbitrary programs. Many people now only have mobile and no PC. I’m not sure if there’s already pressure to have PWAs registered with Google, but if they’re already doing that with browser extensions and apps, doesn’t seem too far fetched they would go there too, even setting aside all the stuff PWAs can’t do.

I really don’t understand why they just put LLMs in direct control of stuff and also reading the public internet without any kind of sandboxing, you’d think this concern would be the main design problem that needs to be worked around.

The county has been under a non-disclosure agreement since at least June 2024.

This part is bullshit and should not be allowed, people have a right to know what their government is doing and considering.

To be fair, in the quoted passage the author is explicitly not referring to Bolt, but asking for explanations of specific, probably small scope issues from non-agentic AI tools.

Personally even while in school for CS I spent a large number of hours staring at a screen being totally unsure how to proceed to figure out what I didn’t understand, most of it trivial details, or making random edits and hoping it would fix something. I’m sure there are advantages to learning by stumbling around, but I really don’t think it’s the ideal way unless you’re already a very methodically curious person.

The temptation to jump directly to asking the AI to just do everything for you without yourself understanding it is definitely going to be a stumbling block for people learning, and I’m not sure if there’s a good way around that one, but otoh something available 24/7 that can mostly accurately answer beginner questions in context and as you have worded them seems like it would be crazy helpful, so many times I just wasn’t able to progress until I could get some attention from someone.

What worries me about it is how it applies very broadly, so it would mean stuff like the reddit piracy megathread could be prohibited, and make it actually more difficult for people to find or discuss places to safely pirate things

The crazy part to me is how the sensors company advertises as a selling point how much “smoking fine revenue” increases with their product

I don’t think anything is more likely to work. I don’t think they are capable of preventing terrorist attacks on planes directly, just like they aren’t capable of preventing any mass killings. I think TSA procedures are there to serve the purpose of pretending that they can. If it isn’t happening, it’s because no one happens to be trying hard enough. The only thing that could work is creating an overall situation in society where people are less motivated to do it, not preventing specific acts.

It would’ve prevented the guy we’re both talking about from sneaking a bomb on the plane in his shoe.

He would have known they were going to make him take his shoes off and so tried something else instead that would probably have been more likely to work.

I think they’re taking it away because people don’t like doing it.

But we’ve never liked doing it

Well I also remember that, but it doesn’t mean making people take their shoes off actually improves safety. And the point I’m making here is, if they are not doing that anymore, doesn’t it mean they don’t think it helps? If it doesn’t help now, then why would it have ever helped?