Why aren't SSL certificates tied to something like DNSSEC where a CA is responsible only for one tld? Since domain ownership is enough to get a certificate signed anyway, that wouldn't change security properties.

Ubuntu (including Ubuntu Pro) still doesn't have a CVE-2026-99999 patch while Debian does have it. For commercial operators a KVM guest escape vulnerability is quite important.

But once in a while it gets into long reasoning loops, which is annoying. It seems less with the Swift model but I haven't benchmarked the difference between that one and the original.

As a human I look at Datadog or Grafana plus some log searches, maybe those need to become tools for the agent.

But... Tell the AI to write more concise and remove typical AI-isms next time. The post is twice as long as it needs to be and keeps doing the "The slow linter isn't the problem" fluffy Claude thing.

Speed has indeed decreased for the modules you can actually buy, while historically you would get faster and faster modules at lower prices in the years after the introduction is a new DDR standard.

If you have some unused extra memory it will be used as disk cache, which also helps in the responsiveness of a desktop. Waiting for the disk is orders of magnitude slower than reading from memory cache.

The plugin is for AppHaven to allow Claude to deploy containers and databases, check their build status and logs etc. So it can take all of the devops work for AI coded applications out of your hands.

Here is an example of what it does: https://apphaven.eu/#how-it-works

I have a Claude plugin on there, but I now see it twice, once with an empty version number and once with 1.0.0 while the latest is actually the 1.1.0 version. Then when I click the 1.0.0 listing under versions the 1.1.0 version appears. Feels like no QA happened on this thing :-)

It is still one step better than the last six weeks, since nothing from their pipeline went live at all during that time: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-plugins-community/issue...

The part I don't think you can leave to the agent is everything around the application: backups, authentication/access control and vulnerability scanning. Those things aren't rocket science, but getting them wrong can have a much bigger impact than a bug in the application itself.

That's what I'm building with https://AppHaven.eu My bet is that vibe-coded apps will become cheap and almost disposable, while the platform underneath them needs to provide those boring safety guarantees automatically.

And the output still has to be a valid flight plan route. You can't just file a flight plan for "I want this zig zag line at this altitude".

Commercial flight planning software does this optimization as well, but it only selects routes that are valid. For example you have to be at a certain altitude to go one way on a route and another altitude to go the other way. ATC can't do their job if you have planes pointing at each other in opposite directions doing 1000+ km/h.

The idea is to make it easier for not-so-technical users to ask their Claude Code or Codex (or similar) agent to deploy the app. And then the platform handles backups, login/access control, vulnerability scanning etc.

A Claude Code plugin is under review at Anthropic to make it very simple to use. For now you can also install it from Github: https://docs.apphaven.eu/agent-integration

The industry does not treat a go around like an error. You'll only ever get questions when you don't go around while procedures clearly require it, like what seems to have happened in this case.

On autopilot use: The pilot is always responsible for the approach. You can definitely have an unstable approach on autopilot if you configure it wrong or ask it to do things that can't be done within the stable approach criteria. A common example is trying to slow down and descend at the same time, most jets can't really do that.

But "responsible" does not necessarily mean to blame in aviation. The industry as a whole follows the Just Culture principles (see: https://www.caa.co.uk/general-aviation/general-aviation-at-t... ) The purpose of a report is to learn from it and improve safety, not to blame the crew.

And that "team" nowadays may also consist of many AI agents. In my experience Claude Code for example works very well with a typed, slightly boring language with lots of framework and library support. Because it doesn't compile when you get something wrong, instead of getting a vague runtime issue that Claude can't always see.

It's almost the opposite. There is automatic monitoring for stable approach criteria (simplified: you must be at speed X with flaps selected etc by altitude Y). So this example would cause an automatic report from the aircraft to the airline, because they were too fast (not within stable approach criteria) and still continued the approach instead of going around.

However even in those cases it's not meant for punishment but for safety improvement. In most professional operations these reports are made anonymous, and only for example someone from a union committee gets to know who the crew were and could have a talk with them if necessary.

Now on the issue itself: Why doesn't Tesla report the version and whether it was FSD or Autopilot?