snowmobile

You can communicate via SMS with users of WhatsApp too genius. Do you think it's encrypted in any way?

The silly names for "work apps" has been a meme since at least 2022. https://x.com/gossipbabies/status/1487161069143576576

Because a pun on "What's Up?" and "App" is so professional? Maybe I'm old but I remember a time when I though WhatsApp was an extremely silly name for a SMS replacement.

By following the same protocol... This has been done for ages. PGP and GPG for example.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. If an app does real E2EE (not "marketing E2EE"), then the servers should have no control over the encryption. Otherwise it's not end-to-end, by definition. Regarding the "private non-interoperable system", the whole point of TFA is that EU made them open it up. See https://engineering.fb.com/2024/03/06/security/whatsapp-mess... Your last "point" is irrelevant because I never claimed anything about the similarity between encryption models. Have you ever heard of a "simile"?

Call it what you want but the fact remains that they can write a lot of laws the member countries must follow, for better or worse. GDPR, Chat Control, etc.

Sorry to be "that guy", because I don't know the details of how WhatsApp does E2EE, but in any proper (as in secure and private) implementation the only thing that should matter is whether the client follows the spec? You might as well ask, how does $browser work with HTTPS?

What's wrong with the name? Some cultural reference I'm not getting?

Actually, the linked university page [1] does claim that the "cash rent equivalent" is $274 per acre. Surprising, but I suppose farmland isn't that expensive. But unfortunately their total budget per acre is $960, 90% higher than in the AI's "budget". Assuming that it can do everything as efficiently and cheaply as an experienced human farmer, such as harvesting all 5 acres in 14 hours of labor.

[1] https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/html/a1-20.html

I don't know anything about farming, but the budget seems extremely dubious. 1370 on the lease, 350 on "IoT sensors" and "soil testing" (why?), but only 800 on "Custom Operator", which I'm assuming is supposed to be the labor, for seven months (apr-oct). So that's an average budget of 114 dollars on labor per month. For minimum wage that buys you 15 hours of work. Is this all a big trolling attempt aimed at HN users?

I mean, it hasn't even "decided" whether it's going for "Iowa, Texas or Cordoba, Argentina". Just look at the files in the repo, it's looking an awful lot like those AI transcripts where somebody's "discovered a new kind of physics". https://github.com/brightseth/proof-of-corn/blob/main/proof-...

Remember the website is entirely AI-built; it's not surprising it's promising a bunch of stuff it's not actually delivering.

I mean, it's probably worse to pretend to be an actual customer, rather than sending some random message. The AI's obviously never going to actually lease any land, so all its doing is convincingly wasting their time. At least landlords are often quite unsympathetic, so it's probably fine to waste their time a bit.

I mean, nobody needs LLMs to program. Being banned may be a blessing in disguise, like being cut off at a bar, or banned from a casino.

How is thinking different from electricity?

...

Well yes, but that accomplishes the goal of not working for free. Either you get money for your work, or your users move on, freeing you of the burden of supporting the software.

That 20ms is a smoking gun - it lines up perfectly with the mysterious pattern we saw earlier!

Speaking of smoking guns, anybody else reckon Claude overuses that term a lot? Seems anytime I give it some debugging question, it'll claim some random thing like a version number or whatever, is a "smoking gun"

This is software support, it is a job, it should be paid.

What's stopping any open source maintainer from charging for their work?

It's a neat program, but what's the use for JPGs and PNGs?

It's a cool publicity stunt for Anna's, and perhaps the hackers responsible for getting the data simply wanted to show it off and leave Spotify with some egg on their face. I know I wouldn't be able to stop myself from publishing it if I was in their position, foolish as it may be.

They're claiming that the archive would have released all the material publicly if they were allowed to know an injunction was about to be filed against them.

I mean, the archive themselves publicly stated their intention to release all the material, without reference to any injunction. So the implication is trivially true, as a logician would say.

think is related to some undetermined future nebulously bad thing for their business

The thing in question being "we copied all your data and are now gonna release it for free". I like what Anna's is doing, but come on! This is dishonest communication if I've ever seen it!

Yeah I'm not saying my friends who cancelled are going to torrent music like it's the 2000's, but when so much music is freely available on the web, why pay? For me it was mainly that the app kept getting worse though.

Since they don't "own" the data they lost, only "rent" it, they probably have to be seen doing something about it, lest they face the wrath of record companies.

Many people are cancelling Spotify among my friends, even very "non-technical" folks. For me I've just gone back to radio or Youtube:ing a few songs for free here and there. Paying the cost of a lunch every month is just not worth it anymore for subscription services.

Corollary to Betteridge's Law: anytime a LLM "exposes secret internals", it's a hallucination.

code review—not code generation—is now the bottleneck to shipping great products.

Unsurprising, since a human still needs to understand and verify the code, be that as it's written or as it's reviewed. AI's only managed to move the brainpower required from the fun part to the tedious and boring part.

Defense in depth doesn't mean throwing a die twice and hoping you don't get snake eyes. The AI-generated docs claim that the AI-generated code only filters specific actions, so even if it manages to do that correctly it's not a lot of protection.

I mean, they've been doing far worse than what they're doing to Europe now to Asian, South American and African countries for at least 70 years.

I'm not saying you should allow all your devs access to the prod server in practice (security in layers and all that). I'm saying, if you wouldn't trust a person to be competent and aligned enough with your goals to have that access in principle, why would you trust them to write code for you? Code that's going to run on that very same server you're so protective about. Sure you may scrutinize every line they write in detail, but then what's the point of hiring them?