- I already isolate workloads between VMs or containers

- Wayland support isn't really there yet without breaking the interop that Qubes provides

- Personal Qubes use cases (e.g banking) overlap with GrapheneOS profiles for me, which I already use. Though Graphene profiles are less ergonomic in that they don't support templating yet.

But I've thrown it on my carry-around Thinkpad to give it a shot and I like it so far.

The transition from GPT4 to GPT5 was not well recieved among this crowd -- nevermind that I think this crowd is pretty small (comparatively) to begin with. I just don't imagine you can build a business on that sliver of a sliver, much less one that justifies OpenAI's spending.

Internet Explorer being pre-installed on Windows devices didn't prevent it from being demolished by newcomer Chrome throughout the 2010s. Now we're looking at a product that's even less integrated, and whose value is exposed through universal interfaces (human language, images, etc.).

If OpenAI succeeds, I imagine that remarkably little of it will have come from the brand. But subtracting the first-mover brand advantage: they can either compete on the frontier, which seems difficult and bears potentially diminishing returns (particularly wrt to distillation); or compete as a commodity, which I imagine cannot justify their valuation/spend.

It seems very uphill of a battle.

Am I wrong that this is orthogonal to "pick a side"? It sounds like you're suggesting that the sides themselves are inappropriately drawn.

Though I'm sympathetic to the users for whom this would basically be a strict downgrade in featureset.

My quick understanding is that isn't really trying to utilize any formal specification but is instead trying to more-clearly map the relationship between, say, an individual human-language requirement you have of your application, and the code which implements that requirement.

Whether or not people will build resilient chains is another story, contingent on whether the strength of that chain actually matters to people. It probably doesn't for a lot of people. Boo. But inasmuch as I care, I feel I ought to be free to try and derive a strong signal through the noise.

What chance have the proverbial good-guys got if, even after _proving_ some modicum of good will, people will nonetheless condescend any attempt to influence bad/wildcard actors? It feels great to tell someone they 'should've known better' but I'm convinced that that's basically void of cautionary utility.

Yes, correspondence between you and Build-A-Bear, and between you and your local terrorist cell, are unencrypted individually. But Build-A-Bear presumably doesn't know about your correspondence with the cell, and the latter presumably has some interest in not sharing organizational data access with the former.

I suppose you do have to trust that Proton isn't served a directive to snoop on your correspondence in transit with other providers. But that's still a much better position than leaving all of your historical data unencrypted at rest.

People bill it as making a ton of usability compromises in the name of security, but that doesn't match my experience. The only redeeming observation is that your phone _does_ lean towards secure-er and ungoogled defaults, which _does_ break functionality that a lot of people expect to "just work" OOTB. But it's trivial to restore it, and the upfront effort getting things to work is amortized over the lifetime of the device. It's maybe an hour's worth of work.

The counterfactual world where users need to forumcrawl how to get to secure/private defaults seems worse to me. By contrast, it's pretty easy to recognize when an app isn't working.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260301133636/https://www.there... https://web.archive.org/web/20260211162657/https://venturebe... https://web.archive.org/web/20260220201539/https://thenewsta...

> Researchers from lower risk countries have been told they could lose access beginning in either September or December if at that point they have been at the lab more than 2 years or, under a waiver, 3 years.

In other words: they're also looking to bar foreign nationals outside of that quoted list, which to my mind is less understandable.

The same doesn't go for traditional, structured software ecosystems, which can afford to coast for a lot longer.

I found it independently of his other work (e.g Bits About Money, or VaccinateCA), which is fitting. The amount of stuff I've read from that guy (including on hn) but did not attribute to a single person seems anomalously high for me. https://www.kalzumeus.com/greatest-hits/

That, and "The Optimal Amount of Fraud is Non-Zero", which is an idiom I paraphrase frequently by this point.

I have to guess that the folks clamoring to put computer vision "back in the bag" are somewhere on the margins, and resemble straw more than steel.