If you are an employee, a frontend dev, for example, then you can't change it as much as you want, other than raising it with your superiors; maybe, as an EM, you can have a chat with the director/VP/CTO about it.

Generally, for an employee, it's more work, which is not bad; it means you are safer in your job (if it's Enterprise). Just ask them to use official ways to request a UI change, such as a Linear/Jira ticket.

This is bad, but you have to deal with it one way or another that will keep you sane. And you can always communicate with the rest of your colleagues to not feel alone.

For him, it's a new fun toy to play with, and he also thinks that makes him very AI-forward or AI-native or whatever the current corporate jargon is.

He is doing this because he thinks this will net him another promotion, and that's the way forward because big shot CEO are doing. That's how most corporate managers think. It seems they know what they are doing, but they mostly try to blend in as much as possible and be the most "forward-thinking" and "raising the bar" and "leading by example".

I would say HuggingFace needs to prioritize both security metrics/alerts and metrics/alerts for node count. And not leave long-lived keys accessible easily like this.

It would have been way more groundbreaking if the agent found an actual vulnerability in Tailscale.

Could that mean anyone owning a TV like this can be sued?

Anyway, it's not that I don't think GitHub has real issues under Microsoft, but I disagree with the title of the article, as devs are not leaving it in droves, yet.

I would guess that's their first line of defense; they should have more techniques to identify distillation because that's a very simple way of detecting the host and can be easily spoofed.