For some reason I read this in James Burke's voice and I could swear I was teleported back to the 80's watching a hitherto unseen episode of Connections.
> I am of the school of thought that even if Broadcom gives VMware Standard away free for a year, it would be hard to convince customers that they need to stick with the platform
Yep. They're building the cage around you. Why would you stick around?
The idiom "added color to" as an expression of adding detail or nuance to something goes back much further than the AI era. I've certainly used it at various times in my career spanning 4 decades now.
"Load-bearing" is fine to me. I've heard it regularly pre-Claude. It has a specific meaning that conveys in one stock phrase.
"Adds color to" says nothing that "Adds detail to" doesn't already say, and the latter is more straightforward English that is quickly readable and understandable by even relatively weak English speakers.
I get wanting to use big words or metaphorical phrasing; I'm guilty of saying "ameliorate" too much. I'm ok if it adds meaning. But when it's just a more colorful word (note that this use of "color" doesn't match the one I originally brought up, which is also a huge problem) and doesn't add any utility or detail, then it's best to avoid it, imo
Yes, it is fun to play with different turns of phrase, even in a stale work environment. I do it to combat the banality, but not so much to sound pretentious hopefully ;)
The problem is once a fun phrase is, uh, coloured by "Claude" or some other LLM, it just turns to AI slop.
I flag and hide every single Twitter post that I see. HN’s code seems to be stuck in the 2000s, so there’s no easy way to automatically block or filter beyond that. To be honest, I just end up coming to this site less than I used to.
Yeah, I just wish seccomp worked per user. So you could define a policy of which users can do which syscalls, and then that follows them no matter which application they start.
As I understand it, the current watermarking methods rely on a secret key, making the detection schemes a black box to anyone not in possession of the key. This means organizations like Anthropic are free to make any claim about authorship they want, true or not, and no one can call them on it.
> If they had no useful purpose, why did we think about them for years?
I don't see a 'we' here. By your own admission you didn't spend years thinking about complicated math topics. So maybe you simply don't see the "purpose". Or maybe no one sees the purpose yet because for some math practical applications take years to discover.
No, it does not. Social contract allows cigarettes, alcohol, pornography, etc. These are not overall beneficial to society, yet we allow them, by law.
When individuals decide they alone get to decide what’s allowable and what’s not they are proving themselves anti social. The civilised way to make that decision is with the help of the rest of the citizens at the voting booth.
There's no question that, in general, people expect businesses to provide a valuable service that does not harm society in the process. Of course, the consensus as to what things are valuable and what things cause harm changes over time (as is clearly the case for cigarettes). As well, when people sense a violation of their expectations, they should certainly take their outrage with them to the ballot box.
But when people sense that the ballot box isn't listening; that the government is both in bed, and emboldened, by the very thing that violates their sensibilities, they often step outside their part in the social contract and do things that speak louder than simply voting, like destroying property. If you are a US citizen like I am, you will know very well that this method of "discourse" is a foundational and often celebrated act in American history.
These people destroying a few cameras here and there aren't solving the problem of invasive and unaccountable government surveillance. But they are speaking their passion about it, not just to the company or the government but to their fellow citizens. And it looks like some people are starting to listen.
Just because you think the government isn’t to your liking you shouldn’t declare yourself the implementir of justice and start vandalizing things.
Study American political history, the pendulum goes back and forth. After one sides in power for a while, the other side wins. It happens every time. You shouldn’t act like an impatient child and start breaking things because you imagine the system is broken. It isn’t.
You can insist otherwise, but I suspect that so long as the government continues to ignore people's basic need for privacy, things will continue to get broken.
> Why would Hanwha Vision need anything remotely related to the DoD? Is it possible that their CI is provided by some centralized team at their parent company Hanwha, where the needs of their sister company Hanwha Aerospace cause the shared platform to have these entries in the CI environment variables? Or maybe because of their other sister company, Hanwha Defense USA, where they make other large scary steel machines
Or... the Department of Warmongers (nee DoD) addresses on the device are evidence of a supply-side attack targeting the DoW and carried out using the aforementioned github admin token.
... I mean, while we're in here speculating about truffles and all.
Interesting stuff.
reply