The packages that are actually compromised are yanked, but I assume you're talking about a scenario more like log4shell. In that case, you can just disable the config to install the update, then re-enable in 7 days. Given that compromised packages are uploaded all the time and zero-day vulnerabilities are comparatively less common, I'd say it's the right call.
The new ! just isn't as useful, and it's harder to get back to see the outputs. The old ! Was just a drop in way quickly do something like ctrl-z command fg.
I am always curious when I see these kinds of movement. It seems abundantly clear that the options on any vote in any legislature for a proposed bill are always “yes” and “ask me later”. So when I see things like Fight Chat Control, it feels like the call is “we must tell our legislators to press the ask later button!”
Why? Why has your approach not been toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward? Genuinely curious. I understand that finding and pressing the “don’t ask again” button is always harder, but I don’t understand why “we punted on this decision!” is a celebratory moment.
Less industry, more small coalitions or special interest groups. Any number of things. To name a few factors
- ideaological. They truly believe this is the best choice, or are fixated only on this choice and nothing else. They are putting their money where their mouths are
- financial. Straightforward one. If they need a service to collect ID's and you can get a government contract, that's big, safe, money. Or a politician is bribed and doesn't care either way. Companies find loopholes to sell data and make even more money.
- power. You get a law passed, you get more leverage to being voted into politics, or maintaining your incumbency. You show you can "get things done"
You can always find something. There's always someone profiteering from anything and everything that politicians could possibly do.
Politicians demanding total surveillance and population control? Of course there's an industry or two for that. Are they lobbying for this stuff? Absolutely.
But what's the causality? That's the ideological question.
In my view, it's a bit too convenient to blame all political evils on capitalism. Power is its own aphrodisiac. Bigotry has no prerequisits. Neither does stupidity.
Better advertisement. Like for example this new bill pushed by Facebook in US about age verification by PC. It will create a universally available API of sorts, which any ad corpo can poll and get more private information about PC user.
Same with this Stazi 2.0 shit by EU. I'm sure the data produced will be either directly processed by some corpo having ad interests, or freely gifted to such corpos.
Is it? Stopping is a matter of ground swell support contacting representatives and saying "please don't". Enough people do it to enough receptive reps and they'll vote no.
Passing new ones that "you like" requires lawyers to write laws, get those laws in front of reps, get them to agree to try and pass it, stake some of their reputation on pushing it, get the ground swell to support it -- which might be difficult when the current law is "dont scan messages", you can easily say "hey dont scan anything! support that!" vs "hey scan somethings sometimes", cause many people will call that a slippery slope. I don't see how they are at all the same process.
Stopping legislation means organizing a sufficient number of no votes.
Passing it means organizing a sufficient number of yes votes.
They are the same process and they require exactly the same work. They take place at the exact same moment in time and space, although they are mutually exclusive.
You're free to describe things however you want, but your descriptions won't change the underlying reality.
Yup, just look at the USA. Despite all chambers being under one party, the executive cabinet is still choosing to bypass laws to force stuff. Because waiting for legislation o pass it legally is sill a higher barrier than smashing he rule of law.
> Yup, just look at the USA. Despite all chambers being under one party, the executive cabinet is still choosing to bypass laws to force stuff.
There's still no procedural difference between passing laws by executive fiat, repealing them by executive fiat, or ignoring them by executive fiat. The first of those things is called an "executive order" and the others are called "prosecutorial discretion", and the culture traditionally views authority exercised as an "executive order" negatively while viewing "prosecutorial discretion" positively, but in the implementation, "prosecutorial discretion" is commanded by executive orders (the documents) in the same way that "executive orders" (new legislation from the president) are.
If you want to get a new executive order issued, or an old one rescinded, or an incipient one forgotten, the process is the same (you convince the president) in all of those cases.
> Passing it means organizing a sufficient number of yes votes.
EU Parliament can't propose legislation, only vote on proposals from the Commission. We'd have to convince the Commission to propose a law to prevent themselves from trying to pass this bullshit over and over.
>Why has your approach not been toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward?
Maybe because the Commission holds the true power and the commissioners aren't directly elected by the people so you don't have any leverage against the commissioners. You can't just say "behave nicely or we won't support you at the next elections".
That's not true. The commission do the bidding of the Council or other elected national ministers. Re-posting my comment:
---
They're just like the civil service in the UK, or any other country. They do the bidding of our nationally elected governments. Nearly all proposals coming from the commission originate from the national governments.
So a law:
Starts with member states directly elected ministers pushing and agenda or the council (again elected) agreeing to push an agenda -> Commissioners take this agenda and work with it to propose law (using EU civil service like any other country does) -> The law then gets voted on by the EU directly elected ministers, who are meant to (and do) represent the people of the states more directly.
Everything in that step is as democratic as any other nation (or nearly).
Most people really don't understand the EU - and yes, it is confusing. This unfortunately makes it easy for certain interests to weaponise this misunderstanding. I've spent years (and years) explaining these concepts, but ultimately like any other argument, this is not a debate from logic, everyone has already made up their minds on emotion or ideology and nothing will make a difference.
It is true though. He said "directly elected by the people" and they are obviously not. If we are being honest, the system where privileged few select other privileged few among themselves is called oligarchy.
What is true? There are many true statements that are meaningless in the context. The commission isn't elected is true. But understanding how they start working on laws is the context, and key to understanding why that doesn't really matter.
People don't want you to look deeper. They want you only have the most shallow understanding, because that allows them to manipulate more easily.
You kind of can, but you get to only vote for the full package i.e. the party which wins the national elections will get to appoint its own commissioner. Most people obviously only care about the domestic issues and likely will not change their vote regardless of what the appointed commissioner thinks or does.
Also curious, as much as the American amendments are problematic, they do at lease create a hard position on things. We are devolving into a space where I’m genuinely scared that the future will become entirely controlled by big money, and it will be too late to change it.
From my understanding Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is somewhat similar to US Constitution & amendments. Both do still allow government to restrict the freedoms granted by those in some situations though I do think the US Constitution does tend to set higher bar on the interference.
There have been EU laws which get struck down because they violated the Charter (e.g. Data Retention Directive).
Hopefully even if the worst comes to pass and the EU ends up enacting this law there are still the courts on the EU level and then the national governments and courts in countries where this type of surveillance is illegal can still decide to do whatever the want (i.e. national constitutions general take precedence over EU treaty obligations)
> toward passing active legislation that protects these rights going forward?
That's not something the "legislators" in the EU parliament can do. It's effectively a consultative body which can either approve or send back the legislation provided to them so the council and commision can find sufficient workarounds...
What would actually help is if a government of a country where this type of Stasi/KGB style surveillance is constitutionally illegal like Germany to speak out and tell the EU (and Denmark which keeps pushing this) that they can go fuck themselves and that they will prosecute any company which is trying to comply with these regulations. (which would be perfectly legal since constitution/basic laws still supersede any type of EU treaty obligations in most countries.
Disabling cache and then complaining that the bandwidth usage never stops increasing is certainly a take, but I'm not sure you can meaningfully draw any conclusions from it.
Using nonstandard ports would break the `ssh foo.exe.dev` pattern.
This could also have been solved by requiring users to customize their SSH config (coder does this once per machine, and it applies to all workspaces), but I guess the exe.dev guys are going for a "zero-config, works anywhere" experience.
Too bad most SSH clients don't seem to support SRV records, they would've been perfect for this:
;; Domain: mydomain.com.
;; SSH running on port 2999 at host 1.2.3.4
;; A Record
vm1928.mydomain.com. 1 IN A 1.2.3.4
;; SRV Record
_ssh._tcp.vm1928.mydomain.com. 1 IN SRV 0 0 2999 vm1928.mydomain.com.
If supported it would result in just being able to do "ssh vm1928.mydomain.com" without having to add "-p 1928"
LLM coding has made programming feel like playing Factorio to me. It's simultaneously much more addictive and much more strenuous than it's even been for me before. Each commit feels like moving to a new link in the supply chain, but each link is imperfect so I have to drop back down to debug them. At the end of a long evening, "one more assembly line" and "one more prompt" feel exactly the same.
I hope it’s at least a little tricky, since Claude was released only 3 years ago. That said, I would not be surprised to see companies asking for 10 years experience, despite that inconvenient truth.
I’ve seen it play out multiple times, highlights precisely why a candidate should never withhold their application based on preference of years of experience with anything. They simply haven’t put much thought into those numbers.
It actually is. A year of experience is not equal at different companies.
You could spend years writing very little code and have “years of experience” in a language, and you can also output intense volumes of work and still be within a year.
Of those two people, the one who spent less real time but produced more work, can have the equivalent experience of the person who spent years.
The key is to figure out how much work a person using Claude Code would have been expected to produce in 10 years, then find a way to do that much in a single year. Boom, you just solved the years of experience problem.
You've never seen project managers basically propose the equivalent of getting a baby delivered in 1 month instead of 9 months by adding more people to the project?
But yeah, if the recruiters start asking for "10 years experience with Claude Code", then I guess a tongue-in-cheek answer would be "sure, I did 10 projects in parallel in one year".
Adding more people to a project doesn’t improve throughout - past a certain point. Communication and coordination overhead (between humans) is the limiting factor. This has been well known in the industry for decades.
Additionally, i’d much rather hire someone that worked on a a handful of projects, but actually _wrote_ a lot of the code, maintained the project after shipping it for a couple years, and has stories about what worked and didn’t, and why. Especially a candidate that worked on a “legacy” project. That type of candidate will be much more knowledgeable and able to more effectively steer an AI agent in the best direction. Taking various trade offs into account. It’s all too easy to just ship something and move on in our industry.
Brownie points if they made key architecture decisions and if they worked on a large scale system.
Claude building something for you isn’t “learning” in my opinion. That’s like saying I can study for a math exam by watching a movie about someone solving math problems. Experience doesn’t work like that. You can definitely learn with AI but it’s a slow process, much like learning the old fashioned way.
reply