Yeah, even with the usual guidance around editorializing headlines and the inherent difficulty in trying to summarize a tweet into a headline-sized snippet, it's worth noting that the title on this comment thread itself doesn't even directly claim any connection. Someone could just as easily state "French streamer Unbanked by Qonoto after eating a salami and cheese sandwich", and if that's what they ate for lunch the day before, it would be equally accurate but unlikely to be considered noteworthy.

Maybe Clawd wrote this itself, and it just doesn't know how old it is?

The point is that without semantic knowledge, there's no way of knowing whether the API actually considers it a secret. If you're using the Github API and have it listed as an approved host but the sandbox doesn't predefine which fields are valid or not to include the token, a malicious application could put the placeholder in the body of an API request making a public gist or something, which then gets replaced with the actual secret. In order to avoid this, the sandbox would need some way of enforcing which fields in the API itself are safe. For a widely used API like Github, this might be something built-in, but to support arbitrary APIs people might want to use, there would probably have to be some way of configuring the list of fields that are considered safe manually.

From various other comments in this thread though, it sounds like this is already well-established territory that past tools have explored. It's not super clear to me how much of this is actually implemented for Deno Sandboxes or not though, but I'd hope they took into account the prior art that seems to have already come up with techniques for handling very similar issues.

How about "in-shoring"? We already have "insuring" and "ensuring", so we might as well add another confusingly similar sounding term to our vocabulary.

How about we leave "...shoring" alone?

That's even more reason that if we manage to increase the amount of solar energy cells by 1000x there are so many more effective ways to use it than immediately flinging them into space. They're not getting constructed as satellites mid-orbit, after all.

Maybe pushback is valid. Why do we need an order of magnitude more datacenters with attendant energy demand and strain on the surround people and environment? What is this meant to achieve?

Interesting phrasing. Does our society exist to see that no billionaires flavor of the month whims go unfulfilled?

I'm not supporter of capitalism, but what Elon is doing is the same as any other business or capitalist participant. He is seeing current demand and anticipating future demand and building systems to meet that demand. I have no desire for society to fulfill whims of the ruling elite but I don't think Elon is doing this on a whim anymore than any business doing any thing likely to make them money.

You're not wrong, but I think there's a subtle way people still might get confused about `Vec` versus `Box` with the way you've phrased it. I'd argue the important characteristic of `Vec` here isn't that it's indirection but specifically that it's sized at compile time. Compared to a `Box`, it does not provide meaningful indirection around types that are themselves not sized at compile time (e.g. dyn trait objects), and storing them inside a `Vec` itself will require a `Box` or something similar.

I genuinely can't tell if this is serious or not (or if the fact that it's impossible to tell is itself the point)

I can't tell if your definition of politician is weirdly narrow or you confidence that there isn't like, some random state legislator with a computer science degree anywhere in the world is absurdly high.

Chatgpt told him that they couldn't

And now that they're getting $100k in a few decades they still will

Given how old most Olympic athletes are when they debut I'm sure that could be helpful if they don't incur any living expenses for another 2-3 decades afterwards