I appreciate this narrative; relatable to me in how I have experienced and watched others around me experience the last few years. It's as if we're all kinda-sorta following a similar "Dunning–Kruger effect" curve at the same time. It feels similar to growing up mucking around with a ppp connection and Netscape in some regards. I'll stretch it: "multimodal", meet your distant analog "hypermedia".
I'm pretty far away from learning about these things in school, but this made me wonder on the connection between the mentioned communication complexity lower bound and special relativity limits on how fast information can travel.
In the Game of Life community, people use "c" to refer to the speed at which a GoL figure can travel, which is at most 1 in the vertical direction, and 1 in the horizontal direction.
Thanks for pulling that thread with me. It would be interesting to see if the lower bound on information needed is ever swappable with the upper bound on the speed of information transfer.
This sentiment has been rolling around in my head for a while. I assume one day I'll be using some hosted model to solve a problem, and suddenly I won't be able to get anything out beyond "it would actually work a lot better if you redeployed your application on Azure infra with a bunch of licensed Windows server instances. Here's 15 paragraphs about why.."
I definitely agree with the spirit of this, but I also know a lot of non technical people who aren't as paranoid about things like this as I am (we have a keypad lock, backup keys in mounted lockboxes along with a 9v battery to power the keypad if need be), and they just expect that paying for something fairly critical like a door lock means it will either work normally, or give an indication that stuff might go sideways soon ("low battery! Replace or be locked out", for example).
I suspect stories like "I left my house without my keys on the day they shut it down to go for a walk and couldn't get back into my home." Or "I somehow locked my keys in my car, including the backup house key. Luckily my backup car key is in the house." Only to realize the lock isn't working normally and there are 100 emails warning them about this in their "updates" tab.. buried under a mountain of spam.
There will definitely be people who wind up stuck with this, especially with such short notice, and it won't necessarily be because they didn't plan. Now I'm going to go double check my lockbox.
Don't put the onus (Opus!) on me! Just a dad approach to helping. If there's enough time to writ prose about the problem you could at least rtfm first!
> allow zoned access enforcement within files. I want to be able to say "this section of the file is for testing", delineated by comments, and forbid Claude from editing it without permission.
I think you missed a critical step: 1.5: know that "allowed tools" is the correct incantation required to summon the relevant documentation; which, at least to me, is not obvious at all in the context of the OP.
While I agree with your sentiment, there's a pretty good chance that at least some of this is, for example, data that inadvertently leaked while someone accidentally exposed an automatic index with Apache, or perhaps an asset manifest exposed a bunch of uploaded images in a folder or bucket that wasn't marked private for whatever reason. I can think of a lot of reasons this data could be "public" that would be well beyond the control of the person exposed. I also don't think that there's a universal enough understanding that uploading something to your WordPress or whatever personal/business site to share with a specific person, with an obscure unpublished URL is actually public. I think these lines are pretty blurry.
Edit: to clarify, in the first two examples I'm referring to web applications that the exposed person uses but does not control.
When I first began experimenting with Linux my first frustration was that it "didn't support" cd.. my mind was blown when I mentioned it to a friend who promptly demonstrated that the use of a space between "cd" and ".." worked in both environments. I decided I should RTFM after that.
A tiny bit of thought about your situation IMO should lead anyone to conclude that you just first-hand experienced the fallout of today's nightmare, and then took a step back and realized you were likely one of millions if not billions of other people experiencing the same, and relayed that thought in terms of immediately understandable loss. Someone else might see "wrong" but I saw empathy.
This is a fascinating question. It's incredibly rhetorical, and I've sat here pondering it for a bit. It's very easy to reply to this question with "well I suppose it depends." And then tack on "What do we consider 'doing good/more good'? What is the nature/species/alignment of the lives being saved, and how are are they equal? Who decides which two lives are better to save than the one, if it's somehow decided that one is better than two? Does the two lives vs one life involve picking between the same two lives, or is it an entirely different set of lives?" and a whole mountain of other questions. It's like asking a magical wish granter to "save two lives" and it does something predictably spiteful like saving two single celled organisms and causing a kitten to die. Thanks for giving me that to chew on.
reply