Of course, it’s still a pretty rough and dirty way to do it. But it works for small/demo projects.

That book was written in 1985, but the core observations are also applicable to modern cellphones (which have become, for the majority of users, entertainment devices).

Postman then talks about how our communication systems have degraded as a result of entertainment being the strength of our current modes.

Fantastic read.

I’m interested in how they’re sandboxing C# code. Seems like an engineering problem full of pitfalls. I’ll definitely be peeking at this!

For example, if you’re active in any FOSS channels, you’re likely to receive spam invites to rooms containing illegal content (with disturbing room images and names that appear on the invite). This has been a known issue for years, and a high visibility issue about it (with responses from Matrix’s managing director) from last summer remains open and largely unaddressed.

This issue link is for the Element client, but it contains links to several related proposals for home servers, clients, and the protocol, many of which are still open/completely unresolved. Notably, the MSC related to invite blocking via policy servers or suggestions about ignoring invites via client settings.

https://github.com/element-hq/element-meta/issues/2486

Bingo.

Ianal but it feels like if you provide an image via an open graph link, you’re implicitly licensing that image to consumers of the Open Graph protocol to be displayed alongside a link/link metadata.

If the media company didn’t have the rights to relicense that image for consumption via Open Graph and/or the original licensor didn’t want their images appearing via Open Graph, that media company shouldn’t be using Open Graph.

That is such a frustrating situation. I hope the courts would have ruled in your favor but I understand why you chose not to test it.

The $48 Pro version resells open source software (Blender is mentioned on their website) and slaps on a few themes. Even if legal, this just seems highly unethical.

I think Apple has done a great job marketing the App Store as the reason for the security/UX of their platform, when in reality, it's the OS. It's the OS that requires apps to get permission before accessing my location, it's the OS that isolates apps from each other, it's the OS that provides an easy way to install/uninstall packages.

The confusion between benefits of the OS/benefits of the App Store combined with many peoples' unfamiliarity with third party distribution has made it more difficult to convince people of the merit of these antitrust suits.

Yes, “vibecoding” still has issues (and likely will for the forseeable future). I’m sure the next decade will be an absolute boon for security researchers working with new companies. But you shouldn’t dismiss people based on their use of these tools.

And other commenters are right that these expensive infra tools can be replaced later when the idea has actually been validated.