Fun fact: I used to automatically screenshot my desktop every few minutes eons ago. This would occasionally save me when I lost some work and could go back to check the screenshots.
I only gave it up because it felt like a liability and, ahem, it was awkward to review screenshots and delete inopportune ones.
Long time ago I had a script that would regularly screenshot my desktop… and display the latest screenshot on a page in my `public_html`, on the public web. Just because I thought it would be fun.
Anthropic's Models are better though. It may not "perform" as well on the LLM task benchmarks, but its the only one that actual gives semi-intelligent responses and seems aligned with human wants. And yes, they definitely have much better execution. It's the only one I considered shelling out 20 bucks for.
they should just acquire one of the many agent code harnesses. Something like opencode works just as well as claude-code and has only been around half of the time.
I used opencode happily for a while before switching to copilot cli. Been a minute , but I don't detect a major quality difference since they added Plan mode. Seems pretty solid, and first party if that matters to your org.
I read that a few times but from my personal observations, Claude Opus 4.5 is not significantly different in GitHub Copilot. The maximum context size is smaller for sure, but I don’t think the model remembers that well when the context is huge.
We love to hate on Microsoft here, but the fact is they are one of the most diversified tech companies out there. I would say they are probably the most diversified, actually. Operating systems, dev tools, business applications, cloud, consumer apps, SaaS, gaming, hardware. They are everywhere in the stack.
That's a "business" model, not a language model, which I believe is what the poster is referring to. In any case though, MS does have a number of models, most notably Phi. I don't think anyone is using them for significant work though.
Which is kind of a bummer - it'd have helped the standards based web to have an actual powerful entity maintain a distinct implementation. Firefox is on life-support and is basically taking code from Blink wholesale, and Webkit isn't really interested in making a browser thats particularly compliant to web standards.
MS's calculus was obvious - why spend insane amounts of engineering effort to make a browser engine that nobody uses - which is too bad, because if I remember correctly they were not too far behind Chrome in either perf or compatibility for a while.
Then they took their eyes off the ball - whether it was protecting the Windows fort (why create an app that has all the functionality of an OS that you give away for free - mostly on Windows, some Mac versions, but no Linux support) when people are paying for Windows OR they just diverted the IE devs to some other "hot" product, browser progress stagnated, even with XMLHttpRequest.
I don’t plan on using the feature and I don’t plan on using Windows much longer in the first place, but I find that going beyond the ragebait headlines and looking at the actual offering and its privacy policy and security documentation makes it look a lot more reasonable.
Microsoft is very explicit in detailing how the data stays on device and goes to great lengths to detail exactly how it works to keep data private, as well as having a lot of sensible exceptions (e.g., disabled for incognito web browsing sessions) and a high degree of control (users can disable it per app).
On top of all this it’s 100% optional and all of Microsoft’s AI features have global on/off switches.
Until those switches come in the crosshairs of someone's KPIs, and then magically they get flipped in whatever direction makes the engagement line go up. Unfortunately we live in a world where all of these companies have done this exact thing, over and over again. These headlines aren't ragebait, they're prescient.
Well, now you’re just doing the same exact thing I described. You’re basically making up hypothetical things that could happen in the future.
I’ll agree with you the moment Microsoft does that. But they haven’t done it. And again, I’m not their champion, I’m actively migrating away from Microsoft products. I just don’t think this type of philosophy is helpful. It’s basically cynicism for cynicism’s sake.
1. More irrelevant stuff. A kernel level vulnerability can nullify all sorts of good faith security design.
2. I could sue you today for, well, pretty much anything. I don’t have a good case but I can file that lawsuit right now. Would you rather take my settlement offer of $50 or pay a lawyer to go to trial and potentially spend the next months/years of your life in court? You can’t make a blanket statement to say that every company that decides to settle has something to hide, or, similarly, that everyone who exercises their 4th amendment rights has something to hide. I will also point out that companies that make lots of money are huge lawsuit targets, e.g., patent trolls sue large corporations all the time.
Don’t forget we are here talking about a fully optional feature that isn’t even turned on by default. I’m not telling you to love Windows Recall, turn it off or switch to Linux if you don’t love it. My only point is that it’s gotten a lot of incorrect news and social media coverage that is factually untrue and designed to get clicks and reinforce feelings.
1. Most people don’t realize kernel hacks undermine their entire mental model of security— tbh, only after crowdstrike did I learn it was possible to mass blue screen a population by a security vendor
2. I’m very much already on Linux, most of my threat model is: “if it’s technically possible, it’s probable” and I adjust my technology choices accordingly
I’m just saying a max cap of $60 for Apple’s settlement sets precedence for future mass surveillance wrist slaps and maybe it would be worth the discovery process to uncover the actual global impact
I mean. Ask any gamer if the original Xbox One announcement needing a Kinect and persistent internet connection was a feature request from them or a three letter org.
As someone that was there, we saved the Xbox brand by bullying Microsoft out of normalizing spying on kids and their whole families.
These are the right questions and core to the actual “ai race”
Before ai, all we had was compilers and interpreters to take instructions and turn them into machine code and byte code
A lot of political painstaking went into which compilers and even with “better options” there’s only really a couple big fish of workflows to take an orgs ideas to production.
What passes as a compiler and what passes for a programming language exploded.
I’m very interested in “the final compile target” of these systems AND the output of that still being human readable and influenceable.
Does that course cover "It's not a good idea to forcibly add gay people to groups and then publically post it to their timeline, outing them"? Or perhaps the photo tags that get added of them (sometimes automatically) at the gay club
(I use the second one as an example, without reference to anything specific, but the first one really did happen. Jason Calacanis talks about it in his interview on Lex Fridman)
you comment did no such thing, in a way that would be recognizable by anyone else. it probably would have been a good comment if you did expand on that though, in some meaningful way.
I use ai daily but reciting the talking points that killed what open source used to mean and using them to further separate original authors from the impact of their work
That’s ai pilled
I write code under the mit license
I know the risk
Helping humans still makes it worth it
And technically these AI companies should have a /licenses route that lists every MIT piece of code their model was trained on.
That’s literally the only expectation I have from anyone as an active author using the MIT license, getting cited.
I think the legal AI defense is that the models themselves are a bastardized form of dynamic linking. I say the models are statically linked though, so they need to spill their sources.
That’d be my question to the person I disrespected:
Why should I, as someone that’s not hypothetically giving back in code, continue to do so, when the social contract has been broken, where the always minimal expectation has been: Say my name?
I literally came up with a unique sdk for all “my elves” such that I can in fact see people in court for mishandling the software supply chain.
There’s a lot of software licensing misinformation out there and including my name and email with the rest of the license text is such a simple thing to misunderstand.
I’m sorry for any and all infractions you’ve committed across all MIT authors to date.
I’m not really planning to take anyone to court, but if you really believe what you’ve said to me here and you’ve been writing code that follows those beliefs
I’m not a lawyer, but you should probably consult a lawyer.
That’s about the inputs going in and even in the first paragraph disclaims other courts may side differently
We’re still not in the legal territory of the outputs on the other side, which is what’s actually more interesting to me.
The technical political maneuvering of to two sides of the accelerationist movement is the fair use bits, which is not even the point I’m debating.
Even there, they are discussing complete bodies of work as source material, which is exactly my point. My stuff can go in, but they still have to cite that I’m in there, which does matter on the other side.
I don’t think anyone deserves to be just weights and algorithms in a dark and shuddered library.
They want this to be a legal laundering device and that’s the bit I’m hung up on.
I literally re-wrote how I wrote software post-ai to ai pill the ai, such that, when these models produce ASTs that match my signature, I do have a legal defense.
I’ve been CSS since the mid 2000s and I have a lot of it memorized by heart.
My team uses tailwind, therefore I use tailwind
But I don’t want to reconfigure my mental model to think in esoteric shorthand, when I already have vanilla web tech memorized.
So I just write some code to match the design and then I let an llm transform it into what my team expects.
I’m sharing in the hopes that the tailwind team can figure out a middle ground because I think a service that can take any valid styled content and output the same result in tailwind would be a niche small language model that solves the use case for why I don’t go to the docs.
The shorthand makes inline style more ergonomic, so you can see the wood for the trees, rather than long strings of style attributes in your markup.
Inline style is the thing. That's what tailwind is enabling in a readable way. And inlined style is what makes style more maintainable and less susceptible to override rot.
The separation between form and function is always a bit illusionary, but particularly so with CSS. Almost all markup is written to look a specific way, not a configurable way.
CSS modules is the native solution. But yes, compile-time CSS in TypeScript like PandaCSS or Vanilla Extract or StyleX (not run-time like Emotion) are also great alternatives.
For what its worth, I had the same experience with Tailwind. I regularly see classes that don't have an meaningful outcome.
I don't think the problem is Tailwind or CSS (well, I guess Tailwind is CSS with extra steps but you get the idea) syntax (or any of the CSS preprocessors), but the fact that styling in browsers has accumulated a lot of cruft, and people who haven't "grown up" with it over the years don't fully understand it (I am more competent than most with it and there's still times I screw up).
One thing that's kinda nice about Tailwind is that it made copy-pasting components easier. So people can get something decent without fully understanding what's happening
I mean stuff like adding `display: block` on the parent and `flex: 1` on a child element. Clearly a copy-pasting leftover because someone or whatnot, but then you're debugging a layout issue and you're wondering "but why is this here"
Yeah, I’m not advocating for css or against tailwind
Just sharing that the root cause is most developers don’t want to pick up an additional syntax when they already have the fundamentals
The main problem is the premise of tailwind
Every single web design on earth is a compound opinion on like a few hundred popular properties and values
They put all that in one style sheet
Which became the one style sheet on earth
Which made it possible to summon all those styles directly from within our apps
Tailwind is like the chess of utilities. There’s only so many opening and closing moves that running a business on it is incredibly difficult, given supply and demand.
>Just sharing that the root cause is most developers don’t want to pick up an additional syntax when they already have the fundamentals
IF they already have the fundamentals. What I see is that more and more developers don't know CSS at all or very little; they only use Tailwind and haven’t worked with CSS extensively before.
“What do we actually need to be productive?”
Which is how Anthropic pulled ahead of Microsoft, that prioritized
checks notes
Taking screenshots of every windows user’s desktop every few seconds. For productivity.
reply