If it's mostly milk (about 5% sugar in the form of lactose), it's up there. Their "protein milk" might well be even more concentrated. That might even be their hack to smuggle sugar into a 'no sugar added' drink.
What's wrong with README.md? A general one at the top level, a specific one for each subfolder (/package) that contains a specific subsystem. Next to it, a CLAUDE.md that only has "See @README.md" (repeat for other harnesses). Claude code knows how to use this: it only loads it into context if it has to work with any files in that directory. With properly structured source, a given prompt will only load a small subset of your documentation - the right one - and this doubles as good documentation for humans, too.
I do use a second Claude (both Opus) to review the first one's output - it almost always finds worthwhile (often critical) observations. They have different 'perspectives', one wants the job done, one wants to find problems, is how I had it explained.
Claude chat itself called it 'Claude-on-Claude action', which I found cute.
You heard it from someone with no experience developing software. A lot of AI hype comes from that, even (or especially) from people in the actual business of developing software - a surprising amount of managers and adjacent or supporting roles in the field actually have very little clue about software development.
It's cool that 'regular' people can now create solutions to many small problems, and automate stuff - genuinely a step forward. Like Excel, only vastly better. But for bigger projects, real software engineers know that what LLMs do today is only a tiny part of development. And it solves it in a way that might well make the rest of the lifecycle a lot harder. It's like that saying about tools that make easy things easier and hard things impossible.
IMO it doesn’t replace software engineers, but it certainly changes the job. The problem lies with VPs and executives that rose to their positions through managing phones and printers and shit who don’t appreciate all of the work that isn’t “write code”, and those people are the majority outside of big tech in my experience.
Currently in a re-org justified by AI, AI changing the roles people will need to play. It’s disturbing how much content in the materials about the new org structure and roles and whatnot is clearly ai generated and contradictory. We’re laying off about half of 500 people.
At my employer (a reasonably well known company) every internal communication appears to be AI generated, from emails to slide decks.
It gets better: The internal AI gateway chat thingy where you can ask questions has AI autocomplete that pops up after your write more than 10 characters. What the fuck!?
Who are these "real" software engineers and what are they working on? Among software developers I know, the biggest users of LLMs are the seniors. I don't think any of them would agree that its usage is a tiny part of development.
Spot on. The Amiga broke my teenage heart (name checks out). I was disgusted with computers after Commodore had run themselves into the ground, and left the whole thing for a few years. I just couldn't work with clunky PCs. In the end I had to budge and here we are, though it will never be quite the same.
"Meta notified at least 20,225 people that their accounts had been compromised. [...]
The compromises allowed the hackers to take over the person's entire Instagram and any linked accounts, including obtaining contact information, dates of birth, and profile information, as well as the ability to access the person's posts, direct messages, and account activity [...]
the hacks began around April 17 and lasted until this week [...]"
This could avoid flagging by Meta explicitly allow bot traffic to do stuff with impunity on its services. Don't tell me an army of people went through and compromised acct by acct.
One can only hope EU gives them a GDPR fine very close to the limit of 4% of global turnover. But when EU is actually need to protect customer I think they will fail.
Incidents like this show how unenforceable GDPR is, and how it's been a net negative for users since its inception. It's idealogical back-patting, toothless when it matters.
After the GDPR every website added an option to export your personal data and to delete your account. Something most were missing at the time. It was an immediate and massive win.
Right, but nothing stops companies from refusing SARs on baloney grounds.
Complain to a DPA? They tell you to go through ADR or outright ignore you. Complain to Ombudsman? They'll tell you the same. (In my experience, the Dutch do this)
Company ignores ADR? Sure, now you can go through the legal route and spend copious amounts of money all because a multi billion dollar company knows the game and how to navigate the bureaucratic mess better than you.
Yep, this is how they do it. The domain registrar netcup did something like this to me.I went through their parent company (?) too, without success. They will put forth any reason to not have to delete your data. I suspect, that they either are trying to reduce work for themselves, or their platform is so crap internally, that they would have to get someone coding to delete the data.
This. In reality, GDPR isn't preventative, nor punitive enough for any meaningful user protection. We get cookie banners everywhere and user data harvesting companies happily pay the negligible fines
The DPC would disagree. All you need to show is that you took "reasonable steps to protect users," which is trivial to do, and not even a single fine will be levied.
No fan of Meta, but I think "staggering" is properly determined by the percent of users affected rather than the absolute number. It's staggering to an SMB with 100k customers; it's bad, but not "staggering" to an internet juggernaught with 3B MAU.
Twenty _thousand_ people had their personal data stolen, many of them relied on these accounts to run their business, many put at risk of hackers impersonating them.
Meta in a fair world should be forced to financially compensate these people. They built a world where many people basically have to use their products for their jobs and then failed to look after the data because they wanted to replace customer support with a vibe coded AI tool.
Over forty _thousand_ people die every year in the US from car accidents. Plenty of other preventable injustices happen in all areas of life. I wonder how many fathers are unjustly taken away from their children by a corrupt family court system, how many people die of treatable diseases denied treatment by insurance companies, how many kids lose interest in school because of bad teachers, how many customer service workers endure daily abuse because they need the job.
It's not that the breach isn't bad, or that Meta is a sympathetic company. It's bad and they're not. I just find it hard to feel outraged about this particular incident affected 1 out of every 10k users of a social media site when we live in a world with citizen's united, qualified immunity, and $300 insulin.
The US car deaths stat is also completely insane and way higher than other countries. I can recognize that at scale, securing every account is a very difficult task, but with scale comes responsibility.
Meta plays fast and loose rushing in unsupervised vibeslop agents to save a penny. They should be significantly penalized for such a massive failure, particularly for how long this exploit was live and for how the victims were unable to get in contact with any human at Meta to restore their account.
Fathers who ask for custody are massively successfull statistically.
Also, taking kids from father requires quite a lot. And no, actually proven domestic violence issue is not enough if it was not provably against the kid itself.
Familly courts have flaws, but fathers with interest in kids having them stolwn en mass is not one of them.
Twenty _thousand_ people had their personal data stolen, many of them relied on these accounts to run their business, many put at risk of hackers impersonating them.
It only worked for accounts that didn't have 2FA switched on. If your livelihood depends on your account and you're risking not turning on some pretty basic security features then you should accept partial responsibility.
Did they partially hack their accounts? No, why would you be saying its partially the victim's fault when the billion dollar corporation doesn't secure their shit?
It's not staggering. I fully expect thousands of people to lose their IG accounts per day to other hacks before this bug. That's like 0.000001 percent of active users. It's a big platform with many people.
But totally Meta should pay. There's not many people to pay. They should sue.
Here are some sources that show the amount of hacked accounts, daily, before this bug is thousands or even tens of thousands. Apparently 30%+ of all social media account takeovers happen on instagram and it's not even the largest platform.
I didn't verify the sources, just searched how many.
This is ridiculous. The only ones afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood are Middle Eastern dictatorships, who would rather not see a political movement take popular hold.
It's mostly slop. And sometimes slop is good enough. But Fred Brooks was talking about actual software systems, not a shop front for an amateur wine importer.
reply