Now’s a good time to step away from this comment section. It seems to really be getting to you. It’s a satirical game, not representative of everyone’s (or anyone’s) full thoughts or feelings on the matter.
If they were using banned chips they wouldn't declare them in public papers. There have been multiple documented/alleged cases of chips being routed through Singaporean shell companies.
Why do you care how much effort it took the engineer to make it? If there was a huge amount of tedium that they used Claude Code for, then reviewed and cleaned up so that it’s indistinguishable from whatever you’d expect from a human; what’s it to you?
Not everyone has the same motivations. I’ve done open source for fun, I’ve done it to unblock something at work, I’ve done it to fix something that annoys me.
If your project is gaining useful functionality, that seems like a win.
Because sometimes programming is an art and we want people to do it as if it was something they cared about.
I play chess and this is a bit like that. Why do I play against humans? Because I want to face another person like me and see what strategies they can come up with.
Of course any chess bot is going to play better, but that's not the point
TIL that when I do anything that makes society label me as a "developer", I am not allowed to enjoy it, or feel about it in any way, as it's now a job, entirely neutral in nature, and I gotta do it, whether I hate or enjoy it - no attached emotions allowed.
> Why do you care how much effort it took the engineer to make it?
Because they're implicitly asking me to put in effort as a reviewer. Pretending that they put more effort in than they have is extremely rude, and intentionally or not, generating a large volume of code amounts to misleading your potential reviewers.
> If there was a huge amount of tedium that they used Claude Code for, then reviewed and cleaned up so that it’s indistinguishable from whatever you’d expect from a human; what’s it to you?
They never do though. These kind of imaginary good AI-based workflows are a "real communism has never been tried" thing.
> If your project is gaining useful functionality, that seems like a win.
Lines of code impose a maintenance cost, and that goes triple when the code quality is low (as is always the case for actually existing AI-generated code). The cost is probably higher than the benefit.
They could require government ID to sign up and an adult sponsor to certify accounts for kids. Plus a limit on how many accounts an adult can sponsor.
It would be a mess, but solve the problem. It’s not that we don’t have the technology, we just don’t want to because the friction would decimate user numbers and engagement; it would be much simpler to regulate (e.g. usage limits on minors); and minors are less monetizable, which would lead to lower CPM on ads.
Then there’s the legal liability if you know someone is a minor and they’re sending nudes, for example. And the privacy concerns of tying that back to de-anonymized individuals.
But obviously I wouldn’t believe that social media companies care about user privacy on behalf of people.
>They could require government ID to sign up and an adult sponsor to certify accounts for kids. Plus a limit on how many accounts an adult can sponsor.
Requiring all online account creation to go through some government vouching system sounds far worse for privacy than OS doing age verification.
I see no such claim that comment said that the parent verifies the child. That that means that the parent must be verified. I don't see that approach having any chance of succeeding. It would be a much more invasive process to both verify the parent and the relationship with the child.
The points:
1. No new law is required, FB could do this voluntarily.
2. Meta has a vested interest in a low-friction solution that maintains engagement.
> They could require government ID to sign up and an adult sponsor to certify accounts for kids.
Even if they used an open source zero knowledge proof, HN will still immediately dismiss it as an attempt to steal your data. The proposal here and the similar bill that passed in California doesn't require any validation that you enter you age correctly.
There is a field in a claims form that indicates what type of insurance it is.
One of these is CHAMPUS, which indicates that it is for a service member or their family. You can tell which.
As a basic case, accumulate these (as in the CHC breach of ~30% of Americans) and you have a nice map of where US military are. Since bases house particular units and types of forces, a nation state can estimate strength and investment in the US military.
In a specific case, the response to claims includes patient responsibility (deductible, co-insurance, co-pay.) Add that up for a financial picture, then you’ve got a nice lead list for service members who have money problems.
This wouldn’t have solved the largest one, Change Healthcare. They are an insurance claims exchange. They have to have all of this data.
The breach was social engineering of a customer support rep.
Having worked with them, they’re absolutely necessary for healthcare (in its current form; don’t get me started) to function. The alternative is integrating with hundreds of payers (won’t happen) or doing it by fax/mail (disaster).
I would say that if it is possible to exfiltrate 193 M sensitive records through a social engineering attack on one customer support rep, then there are multiple failure points that they and other businesses need to address:
- better security training for employees
- don't store 193 M sensitive records in such a way that one social-engineering attack gives you access to all of them
- don't store 193 M sensitive records without appropriate encryption, and make it hard to steal both the records and the decryption mechanism.
If Block is really so much more efficient, while doing well, they should invest that talent into expanded products and services. But that’s not what we’re seeing.
Some things:
- They acquired AfterPay for $29bn. Their market cap today, after the big AI bump, is $40bn. BNPL did not pay off the way payments companies thought it would.
- They have a weird internal combination of Cash and Square and AfterPay internally. They’re not as unified as they ought to be.
This feels more like Jack coming to terms with a company that’s hugely inefficient organizationally. It’s easier to clear out thousands of people and rebuild.
reply