1. Which reforms are contradictory?
2. I’m not convinced of term/age limits, but I believe I've heard all these reforms proposed at least by the US left - which of the reforms have you not heard proposed by the left?
By automating routine screenings every time someone travels, programs like Global Entry drastically reduce DHS airport staff workload. Conversely, scrapping them increases DHS airport staff workload, spikes wait times for the public, and fuels frustration for both DHS staff and travelers. But causing such pain for both US travelers and DHS employees is likely Republicans’ goal.
1. Anthropic had no problem spending tens of thouands of dollars of tokens re-writing the C compiler a couple weeks ago before abandonining it within hours of launch, despite promising that fixes were coming in the following days.
2. Regardless are you arguing that re-writing Chromium would have been a good solution for the original suggestion of native apps? Aren't there better existing approaches from companies that don't claim to have the best coders, nor are worth hundreds of millions, billions, tens of billions, nor hundreds of billions of dollars, so I'm unsure why you made that specific suggestion? Wouldn't pointing to an existing product's native approach be a better suggestion?
I’m just saying that the consensus seems to be that they should’ve rebuilt what was inside electron so why not just insist that AI doesn’t work until they’ve recreated chrome?
What really is the argument and the threshold we’re proposing here?
I just think the idea that we have some sort of vision into their design process because we can look at some externally visible feature of the design is silly. Am I supposed to presume the same thing about capabilities for every shop that creates an electron app? Am I supposed to take anyone’s native app and see that as a claim that they’ve cracked coding?
These things are just orthogonal to the questions at hand. They’re just simply not related and everyone here seems to pretend like they are.
1. Anthropic has no problem burning tens of thousands of dollars of tokens on things that have zero real-world value, such as implementing a C compiler that as far as I can tell they don't intend to be used in the real world - for example, they announced it on Feb 5, promising "Over the coming days, I’ll continue having Claude push new changes if you want to follow along with Claude’s continued attempts at addressing these limitations" but there have been zero code commits since Feb 5 (the day they announced it). Wouldn't it make far more sense for a company to invest tokens into their own product than burning them for something that may be abandoned within hours of launching, with zero ongoing value to their company or their customers?
2. Why do you think it requires "three times the resources" - wouldn't it normally be an incremental amount of work to support additional targets, but not an additional 100% of work for each additional target?
I would have expected the non-solved-cases to be the relatively unique ones, but considering the plethora of both A) non-Electron desktop apps, and B) coding agents (Copilot/Windsurf/Cursor/Codex/OpenCode/Qwen/Amazon Kiro/Devin/JetBrains AI/Gemini CLI/Gemini Code Assist/Antigravity/Warp/Kilocode/Cline/RooCode/Atlassian Rovo/Claude Code/etc), it seems like neither of the building blocks is very rare - perhaps Claude is just incapable of putting it together?
I'm guessing you're saying no one wants it? As otherwise, launching on an OS that has ~3% market share (on top of a cross-platform engine) will prevent the vast majority of adoption, yes.
But the three laws are incredibly strong compared to what exists today. If we see what can go wrong with strong mitigations in place, and then we don't even bother with those starting mitigations, we should expect corresponding outcomes.
I upvoted you, but wouldn't “verified” exclude the vast majority of death threats since they might have been faked? (Or maybe we should disregard almost all claimed death threats we hear about since they might have been faked?)
> Clone the GitHub repo, … build from source, update manually
I’d be ok to do that once per extension, but then I’ve got multiple PCs (m), multiple browser profiles (p), OS-reimages (r), and each extension (e) locally installed doesn’t sync — manually re-installing local extensions
m x p x r x e
times is too much for me. :-( (And that’s even if I’m only running Chrome, as opposed to multiple browser or Chromium derivatives.)
Yeah that one's too much for me too, I used to do this years ago, but not anymore. Especially since I found out Brave supports network blocking for extensions, which is something you generally set up once and then forget about it. I'm just giving people tools and ideas I didn't see mentioned elsewhere in the comments, it's up to everyone to figure out their particular threat scenarios and tradeoffs individually.
This could probably be automated though if someone wanted to tackle it. git pull, agentic code review, auto-build from source, install.
reply