That's certainly a way to look at it. And that repo contains a "third party" directory which itself contains Linux, LLVM, and much of the rest of the open source world. But I would suggest that the largest of those thousands of applications probably has a transitive closure of hundreds of millions of lines of code.
I'm aware. I worked on that specific project (assuming we are talking about the same one) back in the day. :-)
There are certainly very large applications in that repo in the hundreds of millions of lines of code. But comparing the entire repo to single applications is not an apt comparison.
Like a lot of things, bad actors only have to get you to fail the test of succession once while the company has to succeed at it every time. Time is not on any companies side here and the longer it goes the more failing that test of succession starts to look like a law of nature.
That's true, and yet the evidence shows that some companies have been able to do it. I think there's something to be learned by studying those companies as a data set.
They have been able to "so far". This isn't to say that we shouldn't learn from them how to push the failure date as far into the future as you can. I just don't think you can truly make something incorruptible.
It’s perhaps idealistic, but maybe we’ll figure out a way to limit the blast radius of any failures by driving a culture that rewards those that push out the future date as you say
The structure requires maintenance and that is done by an individual or individuals. The real reasons a good company stays good is because the leadership stays good. When the leadership begins to disengage or leaves or changes in some way then the structure will begin to break down. You can't fix it with a "better" structure. It will decay over time unless someone is actively maintaining it.
What you say is true, but there is more to it. Decay is not the only thing that can happen to a structure. It also can be actively destroyed from the outside. Rather than ask whether a structure is right or wrong, good or bad, we instead need to learn to ask whether it is strong or weak.
I get the sense you were feeling at odds with my framing? I wonder if it's that you're picking up that I believe "structure" is above any one person or set of people. In my conception, leadership is just part of structure, a key maintainer. Leadership are pieces of the structure, but subordinate in scale. They sometimes seek outside help in shaping structure (e.g., ppl like eries), and the structure becomes like another passive actor, not simply "leadership's doing". Leadership are key players taking care of the structure, but they are just one set of players, and in some structures, non-leadership employees play an outsized role (often because leadership knew enough to step back). Sometimes the role of leadership if "fucking right off" in certain domains. Regardless, the structure then guides behaviour of all within it, and hopefully the structure also maintains us, at least as much as we maintain it.
I'm stating the above as if it's universally true, but it's just my take. I'd be curious to know if any parts give you strong YES or NO feelings, if you are open to share your gut reaction. Blunt responses welcome
In all seriousness, yes, individual leadership at the top has to be willing to steelman controversial issues and potential changes of direction, as well engage in unapologetic gatekeeping. At this point we've seen this over and over in tech when observing corporate successes and failures.
The correct solution for most users of Claude is to refuse to do things like: `performing logins, handling credentials on behalf of the user, etc`. It is not to find a way to hand your agent the keys to the kingdom.
Guiding them toward solutions like building a tool that your agent can use safely and and then have the agent use that is what most people should be doing. If you are a security researcher then there are reasonable reasons to do that but they are doing the arguably good thing for the average user here.
They also survive because they invest those resources in some amount of mitigation ahead of time. They don't survive when they don't scale their mitigations along with the business.
No they didn't? I use these continuously and it's pretty obvious to me that they do not at the level of a human except in the most surface level ways. Human's as compared to an LLM remain a special category. We have not in fact cracked human level intelligence.
I am admittedly not an expert here but this does not at all sound like something that Apple can force Shopify to do. I was under the impression that when Apple does something like this it's primarily because the seller was positioning themselves as an official Apple reseller in some way which they do pretty aggressively police. Did Shopify give you any more details on why they believed they had to delist you?
Because we were in electronic recycling, many items came without batteries or chargers due to fire-risk concerns, so we had to source replacements ourselves. We eventually launched a private-label brand for generic camera batteries, drone batteries, power-tool batteries, chargers, and similar accessories.
Then Shopify unpublished those products too after Canon contacted them, claiming we were not allowed to sell them. But these were generic replacement products, the same kind of items sold by Anker and countless other electronics brands online.
If Canon believed we were doing something illegal, they could have sent a cease-and-desist and gone through the normal legal process. Instead, they went through Shopify’s back channels and effectively skirted due process, using platform pressure to remove products they simply did not want us selling.
But don’t worry, companies like Anker who have resources and pull can still sell them and have online websites. Again, the market is being manipulated and winners chosen.
Or were you doing something shady that was legitimate grounds for Shopify to remove those products? There's a big difference between what you personally think should be appropriate and what laws and compliance requirements consider. It's like the annual HN post about someone that claims Cloudflare shut down their account and eventually it turns out they were clearly doing something against the TOS.
Nope we’re electronic recyclers and work with real certified Apple refurbished sellers across the US. Let me know if you find any Shopify stores selling refurbished MacBooks like we and many other sell on Amazon and eBay legally. Same with generic batteries and chargers.
We ditched Shopify years ago and sell the same things on our Shopify alternative. Host on Railway and haven’t faced issues in more than 5 years, no need for a high risk payment processor either.
Yes, first I built Openship, an order management system, that worked with Shopify. Then it was easy to move off Shopify and build my own alternative. Any e-commerce seller knows all you need is an OMS. I also built a custom storefront so that was easy to migrate.
Are those sellers on Shop.app established? Try launching your own and get back to me. Apple will be on Shopify trying to shut you down immediately. Just like so many websites on the web, it’s hard to make accounts now and that’s the same with e-commerce. Shopify is essentially choosing winners based on who they allow to sell what.
It's not really a rule of thumb that "Tell others the truth, tell yourself the truth" means you have to barely scrape by. Plenty of people make good money that way.
What does mapping your externalities have to do with honesty? Is this a poor attempt to suggest that no one can actually be honest because no one has a full understanding of the entire universe? Because that's just a lazy excuse for not trying to be honest and not really worth being in the debate.
Having externalities does not mean you are dishonest. Hell, you can even ignore your externalities and still be honest. You can even outright steal from people and still be honest.
Yeah on the contrary, it’s been my experience that finding other truth tellers tends to lead to a supportive community, where everyone is relieved they don’t have to put up with bullshitters.
Feels to opposite to me. GPT-1 would have exploded the word count to about 10x and made it sound way more breathlessly influencer coded. GPT-1 would have written something that was 180 degrees opposite of what the post is communicating.
Perhaps you need to read it again a little more carefully?
The article shows off an strace TUI, and it's not like I can't see the benefits of making strace output more browsable. What I don't understand is why that must happen inside a terminal window where (for instance) all text must have the same font and size.
It doesn't technically have to. But if you want to do it in a different location than the terminal window and have it be cross-platform and easy to develop for your options are limited. There are not really very many text-first UI frameworks out there that are cross platform. It's similar I think to the way that the browser has become the dominant GUI platform for development. The Terminal standards are fast becoming the dominant platform for Text First Interfaces.
reply