That drives me crazy. What's crazier happens when the suggested word is the one you are going to type. You hit the next letter in the word, recognize that it has already been suggested, yet right after you hit the letter, it decides to suggest another word.

Sam Bankman Fried wasn't jailed for running FTX. He was jailed for conducting fraud. Silk Road wasn't a registered company at all. It was downright criminal.

One should distinguish between high-stakes vs low-stakes firefighting duties. The former could fast-track one's career, but the latter is a guarantee for stagnation.

> Go check how much sugar is dissolved in soda

Your “counterargument” supports the argument that you quoted though. People can't eat spoonfuls of sugar, but they can drink it when dissolved in flavorful, acidic water.

The following quote is especially problematic IMHO:

> For a paper claiming to overturn decades of alcohol drinking recommendations, the statistical foundation is underdocumented and, to be mild, statistically strange.

Given that "decades of alcohol drinking recommendations" lacked any statistical basis to begin with, the scientific-rigor bar to clear is quite low IMHO.

It's just writing for dramatic effect it seems. The claim that the paper is 'used as “definitive” argument in the medical discussions' seems quite absurd given that the paper itself was published just two months ago.

I used to work for a company seeking SOC2 compliance. They told me that I had to install corporate malware because of the compliance. I didn't want to install it on my personal computer, which I had been using for work. They sent me a company computer. I installed the corporate malware on that one. I set the company computer aside and continued working on my personal computer. No SOC2 compliance was harmed in the process.

The company computer typically comes with some data protection agreement, where you agree to only access confidential data via the company computer, or at least to never copy confidential company data to personal devices.

On the one side you are liable because you are accessing company data on your personal computer. On the other you are liable because the company is forcing you to use insecure devices to access company data because of compliance. I think we need to check the contracts to see which liability to choose that will give you the least amount of headache.

You're not liable for using company devices to access company data, regardless of if it's insecure or not. Don't use personal devices for work

I know, I was being coy, but if I'm being honest using company devices makes me really anxious, it's always in the back of my head that someone is going to abuse that outdated and opaque VPN stack from Fortinet or that Kaspersky Daemon I needed to install using a script some guy from security sent me with a Google Docs link over DM, and I'll have a really hard time explaining there was no mishandling of data from my part

Requires login. Garbage.

I build a OSS lightweight, portable VM for those that don't want lock ins: https://github.com/smol-machines/smolvm

I have a solution based on Nix that can be used to generate reproducible container images: https://github.com/nothingnesses/agent-images . It lets you customise which agents, harnesses, or any other packages you want included in the VM and it uses `agent-box` for sandboxing.

wonderful, will try to test this in smol machines as well

This looks like gvisor but is a vm like firecracker right? Any reason you did not want to use firecracker?

(I am testing this now as a backend for my pet project which currently supports firecracker and gvisor. No network.)

It's a batteries included alternative to firecracker with a couple of new ideas tossed into the mix i.e. portable like a container (bake into a single file and rehydrate the vm anywhere), dynamic resource allocation, etc.

What? Does using sbx require login? Bummer.

Yes and they have a specific subscription for managing sandbox policies across the enterprise: Docker AI Governance

You can create those manually but if you want to enforce those then you need the subscription

> This is actually a fairly recent concept.

Whether people think it's God dictated or it's self invented, sounds to me like people acquire purpose.

There's a difference between being born into a world where you are taught you have a purpose defined by God, the universe, etc., and being born into a culture where you are taught you need to find your own purpose.

You're not disagreeing. They're different ways of acquiring a purpose but they're both acquiring a purpose.

The historical evidence is pretty clear that the modern idea you have a unique purpose you need to find for yourself started to become common in the 18th and 19th centuries. Before that, purpose was largely a dictate cast upon all members of the society.

That feels like an incredibly modern view.

> it doesn’t explain why piracy rates are much lower, despite having a lot of service problems.

Can you explain why you think piracy rates must be higher? Piracy isn't “free” after all.

Very common for some movie, tv shows or music not be available here. Or also, fairly expensive to buy/rent for some. If it was service issue, this would drive people who want to enjoy the media to piracy.

Yet it doesn’t.

Piracy has its own costs. It's likely that given the trade-offs, piracy rates don't increase.

PS: I have no idea whether piracy rates are up or down.

Chasing a thinner product at all costs?