Mobile platforms are entirely useless to me for exactly this reason, individual islands that don't interact to make anything more generally useful. I would never use any os that worked like that, it's for toys and disposable software only imo.

Mobile platforms are far more secure than desktop computing software. I'd rather do internet banking on my phone than on my computer. You should too.

We can make operating systems where the islands can interact. Its just needs to be opt in instead of opt out. A bad Notepad++ update shouldn't be able to invisibly read all of thunderbird's stored emails, or add backdoors to projects I'm working on or cryptolocker my documents. At least not without my say so.

I get that permission prompts are annoying. There are some ways to do the UI aspect in a better way - like have the open file dialogue box automatically pass along permissions to the opened file. But these are the minority of cases. Most programs only need to access to their own stuff. Having an OS confirmation for the few applications that need to escape their island would be a much better default. Still allow all the software we use today, but block a great many of these attacks.

Both are true, and both should be allowed to exist as they serve different purposes.

Sound engineers don't use lossy formats such as MP3 when making edits in preproduction work, as its intended for end users and would degrade quality cumulatively. In the same way someone working on software shouldn't be required to use an end-user consumption system when they are at work.

It would be unfortunate to see the nuance missed just because a system isn't 'new', it doesn't mean the system needs to be scrapped.

I mostly agree but ...

> In the same way someone working on software shouldn't be required to use an end-user consumption system when they are at work.

I'm worried that many software developers (including me, a lot of the time) will only enable security after exhausting all other options. So long as there's a big button labeled "Developer Mode" or "Run as Admin" which turns off all the best security features, I bet lots of software will require that to be enabled in order to work.

Apple has quite impressive frameworks for application sandboxing. Do any apps use them? Do those DAWs that sound engineers use run VST plugins in a sandbox? Or do they just dyld + call? I bet most of the time its the latter. And look at this Notepad++ attack. The attack would have been stopped dead if the update process validated digital signatures. But no, it was too hard so instead they got their users' computers hacked.

I'm a pragmatist. I want a useful, secure computing environment. Show me how to do that without annoying developers and I'm all in. But I worry that the only way a proper capability model would be used would be by going all in.

There is a middle ground (maybe even closer to more limited OS design principles) exist. It is not just toys. Otherwise neither UWP on Windows nor Flatpaks or Firejail would exist nor systemd would implement containerization features.

In such a scenario, you can launch your IDE from your application manager and then only give write access to specific folders for a project. The IDE's configuration files can also be stored in isolated directories. You can still access them with your file manager software or your terminal app which are "special" and need to be approved by you once (or for each update) as special. You may think "How do I even share my secrets like Git SSH keys?". Well that's why we need services like the SSH Agent or Freedesktop secret-storage-spec. Windows already has this btw as the secret vaults. They are there since at least Windows 7 maybe even Vista.

Whom is on its way out anyway; I don't think I ever use it at all and certainly never hear anyone else use it.

I have no idea why someone would get mad about getting a vacuum cleaner as a gift. It's boring, sure, but if you keep complaining about your old one, it seems pretty thoughtful.

Everyone’s situation is different. But typically the reason this offends is because for a stay at home mom a vacuum is a work tool. If the current vacuum is broken then you should just get a new one. It shouldn’t take the place of a Christmas present, which is the opportunity to get her something related to her personal interests rather than her job.

Interesting point of view. But it's common for a man to get a work tool as present (e.g. a drill or a set of wrenches), with the obvious implication that the man will usually be the one who will have to use that tool to fix things around the house - and I have never seen anyone find that offensive. So what makes the vacuum cleaner different?

For anyone that like to do DIY, that's not a work tool, that's a play tool that is coincidentally a work tool to do work.

Same thing back at you. The vacuum is a play tool to anyone who finds cleaning to be “fun”.

There’s whole genres of cleanup games on steam which are extremely popular, profitable, and well reviewed.

One of my favorite vectrex games is a Pac-Man clone where you play as a vacuum.

Powerwash simulator is occasionally fun. There's shiny rewards, I don't have to deal with potential bad weather, and there's no random patches that take 20 times to get rid of. If I don't feel like powerwashing simulator, it will wait for me, forever, with no ill consequences or social judgement.

If I never wash my actual driveway, the same is not true. Therefore I will need to wash it at times when it's unpleasant or I don't want to, and it will take longer than powerwashing a driveway in Powerwash simulator.

In this scenario (again, everyone’s situation is different) DIY is more often a hobby for the husband. Repairs are infrequent enough that you could just hire someone as needed, but the husband chooses to do it.

Perhaps more importantly, it’s not his full time job.

The implication is that it implies vacuuming is that persons responsibility to the point of giving them "their" tools instead of it being a shared purchase for the house.

Not everyone will care, but this is a stereotypical type of present likely to trigger anger and resentment in the recipient for a reason.

That's not what he said or implied, he's merely responding to your argument 'Donating any amount of money to prevent people you don't know from marrying each other'. I think you might have a justifiable argument here, but it's not clear at all to me what it is.

I cannot imagine the mental model you're working with if my observation is not crystal clear despite omitting the word "adults" in my initial post. Both your and Y_Y's responses read as bad faith to me, but it could be extraordinary ignorance.

In either case I have no idea how to make it clearer for you. Good luck.

It's basic tolerance, it's not that hard. You do your job and collect your paycheck at the end of the week, same as everyone else.

>It's basic tolerance, it's not that hard.

That's right. To get a bit philosophical, it's interesting to see some people's justifications about how they are right to be intolerant in the ways they want to be, while still believing that they are free-thinking and tolerant. A lot of convoluted arguments are really about keeping one's self-image intact, justifying beliefs that are contradictory but which the person really wants to believe. I think that is a trap that is more dangerous for intelligent people.

For what it's worth, I support and supported gay marriage at the time, but don't think people should be forced out of their job for believing otherwise. Thoughts and words you disagree with should be met with alternative thoughts and words.

Could you summarize this into an argument of your own?

That's kinda my point, this was already argued like 80 years ago.

> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

"I want to discriminate against others but still claim to be righteous."

Bad-faith putting words into my mouth. Take that shit elsewhere please.

This argument seems to be a) intentionally provocative and intending only really to ruffle feathers, not actually put a coherent argument forward

And b) about on par with saying "water is evil" because if you drink too much of it you'll die.

I've had recurring headaches my entire life. Have been to many neurologists, none have any idea what causes them, they just give me different pills to prevent them instead. This isn't unusual for headaches, quite often the cause is basically unknown. (If you ask people they'll give you a series of common things, eg water consumption, eating enough, etc, but it's just all unprovable folk medicine) Expecting everyone to "find the cause" is unreasonable.

If you have a headache, it's totally fine to take a painkiller. (If it happens on a regular basis, eg at least once a week, it can be a good idea to get those different pills from a neurologist, because the two main painkillers have bad side effects in the long run, but those different pills are just "masking" it in a different way)

I am not trying to say that you are never supposed to take medications long-term. I take medications, too. Unfortunately the causes are known (or rather, there is a diagnosis), but there is no treatment or cure.

What I am trying to say is that after the Nth time you would take the kid to the doctor to find out what causes the pain, instead of just giving them painkillers. It could easily be something treatable, or rather, curable.

Have you tried sumatriptan by the way?

Isn't that exactly what these sort of things are about?

No one is inspired (which is usually the point of the factoids) by "this person made marginal contributions to the field for 30 years and then retired".

In Atlanta suburb, I've never seen one, only normal looking vans.

That’s weird. I’m about as far away as you can be from Atlanta and still be considered in the metro area. Maybe it’s dependent on the area.

> According to xAI policy, Grok is "not directed" to children under 13 while teens between 13 and 17 must have their parent or legal guardian's permission to use it, and they must agree to the company's terms of service.

You know, I'm pretty sure it's not cool to ask for nudes from a 13 year old even if their parents say it's OK.

> Are you saying that all products must be safe for children

If you plan on children using it, which is clearly the case for Grok, yeah.

> It's not cool to chop off a 13-year-old's arm, but a chainsaw will do that all the same.

What chainsaw do you own that has a “when being handled by a 13 year old“ section in the manual?

That is not clearly the case for Grok, it’s not even allowed by Groks terms and conditions. They have a separate kids mode, which the parents did not enable.

It is exactly like a parent buying a chainsaw, which explicitly states keep away from children, and then giving it to your child all the same.

I am not saying that, but a chainsaw will not do that unsolicited. If xAI is saying it's cool to let 13 year olds use the service with parental permission (note: not supervision, permission), then they have a responsibility to behave appropriately with those 13 year olds.

But there's literally a child-safe mode, which was not activated. (I don't know the details of this mode, I know nothing other than what was told to me in the article, so it's possible that kids mode is worthless. But obviously activating that is step 1)

This seems equivalent to me to taking the training wheels off a bike and then complaining when your child gets hurt.

I hope that, no matter what configuration you put the bike in, it doesn't sexually harass the rider.

Important to note as well that kid mode didn't exist when this happened.

Calling it kids mode implies it's for ~5-9, if someone was making a 12 year old use yt kids, id think they suck as a parrent.

I mean, call me old-fashioned, but I’d generally expect that magic talking cars would not ask _anybody_ for their nudes. That seems a reasonable default assumption.

This is the exact same reason KITT got cancelled.

I'm an adult. I don't want the model to ask me to send it nudes when I'm asking it about soccer.

According to women I know, they get inappropriate nudes and requested of them infrequently but it’s not a total absence either. It’s been a meme, too. As this thing mimics human text its going to happen without intervention.

I mean, yeah, it's not great even for a regular non-child-mode. But then that has nothing to do with anyone's age, it's just 'send me nudes' isn't a good continuation of the conversation.