Defense in depth. Malware is software programmed to do a number of things, not all possible things (well at least until the attacker gets a shell, which is rather noisy). Scanning env vars is trivial, scanning the entire file system and traversing mount points is a bit harder, traversing all memory and guessing what’s a secret is a hell lot harder even for an interactive attacker. If you happen to include some malicious library doing dragnet mining and exfilatration of secrets, you’re more likely to dodge a bullet if you don’t have secrets in env vars than if you do.
Just recently I heard that they can donate to “typed languages” too, a donation to one language does’t preclude other donations, and given their cash injections they have a few $1.5m’s to spare.
And on top of that, putting these in AGENTS.md makes no sense whatsoever. You’ll simply waste tokens and confuse the hell out of your agents. I wonder if gp assumed this is another repo of design patterns without reading anything there at all. Pasting a bunch of design patterns into AGENTS.md may not be the brightest idea either but at least that isn’t absurd.
If this reporting is accurate then it certainly paints a picture of cult-like behavior. Personal charisma, empathetic and caring, "strangely conspiratorial" behavior during appointments cementing an us (one lone doctor and helpless patients) against them (wealthy and powerful people) narrative, etc. are very effective on distressed people. On top of that it seems that apart from being tested over and over again and being told they have a "mystery illness", the patients aren't really treated whatsoever? Whether there's a true cluster disease or not, evidence seems to suggest that he's just adding a lot of totally non-mysterious cases to his cluster. Evading pretty mundane questions like how many of his cluster cases actually show elevated levels of environmental toxins just adds to the suspicious signs. Plus
> The couple waited eight months to get important test results from Marrero, Strickland said, as April's condition worsened. Soon Strickland could no longer manage her care. But to get her a place in assisted living he needed a letter of support from Marrero. "I think I waited four months for that letter," Strickland recalled. "I kept phoning and asking."
just sounds like medical malpractice. You shouldn't keep five hundred patients hanging if you can't handle five hundred. Makes all the talk about being empathetic and caring sound like bullshit. I feel bad for those who are probably misdiagnosed but refuse to get a second opinion thanks to the successful mental subjugation.
I bought Tailwind Plus when it was still Tailwind UI years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it in hobbyist projects and some professional projects. Would have pushed for company license if my current company isn’t exclusively native apps.
I don’t like getting asked what I do for hobbies. The real answer I want to give is “none of your business”, but I’m polite enough to never say that, so it gets awkward.
Getting asked what I do for a living is totally fine. It’s on my website, the whole world can find out if they bother to search. I’ll save you a search.
The point is people are different. Not everyone wants to share their private interests with you, especially if you just met. What you consider interesting conversation, well, for some of us it’s just intrusive. I also don’t care what you like to do 99% of the time. I’ve been socially forced to sit through way too many of these “interesting conversations”.
Could we be thinking about different social situations? I’m not turning to people on the bus and asking what their hobbies are. And it’s not my first question of people visiting my office happy hour.
If you’re at my home for dinner, I hope anyone that still feels this way does answer “the details of my private life are none of your business” when I’m trying to get to know them as a friend, so I know never to waste another good meal on them.
I have some experience in this regard, and Google, even though it’s known for nonexistent human support, isn’t even the worst. I helped a Chinese creator friend DMCA takedown a bunch of accounts on YouTube/Instagram/TikTok straight up stealing her content / impersonating her. TikTok’s response was fastest, one account was taken down within eight hours (to my pleasant surprise), another was taken down in three days. YouTube was all right, accounts were taken down in a week or so. Facebook/Instagram was the worst. They asked for the least info upfront in their takedown form, sent a bunch of follow up emails, then eventually just ghosted me. I initiated new email chains referencing the case ID but never heard from anyone. I had to negotiate with the account holder but that went nowhere either since my threat to take down the account turned out to be a joke. To this day the infringing account is still up.
IANAL but if you send a DMCA notice and they ignore it, they are (partly) liable. That's the point of DMCA.
File in a small claims court (or notify of your intent to do so) and see how long it takes to get a response ...
I wonder if you could probably even suggest a fee for damages, wasted time, etc due to their slow response and hope it's cheaper than them getting a lawyer to assess it ...
You would need to be the owner, and would know where to file though. If it's not your content, and you're "helping a friend" (but not actually legally representing them) then my guess is they haven't received a valid DMCA.
Also, register the copyright, assuming that's still working under the current administration. (Trump is trying to fire the head of the Copyright Office, which is part of the Library of Congress and doesn't report to Trump.)
I was legally representing them. I had their photo ID and a signed legal authorization letter and screencasts of their private creator portal showing infringed works and dossier of side-of-side comparison of infringing URLs and original URLs with publishing timestamps highlighted. All the submitted documents were signed. It hardly gets more concrete than that.
I mean, you can block or ignore them if you’re sufficiently good at bullshitting, and they lose steam before figuring out your weak spot.
Which statistically for the insurance industry happens with 90% or so of all claims.
If you give yourself just enough plausible deniability to work around the penalties (or even if you don’t, if the math is in your favor enough!), at a minimum it can give you a boost for the next quarter, which is key.
my wife had an FB account registered on her old phone number. she had that account deleted (but FB 'deactivates' them by default, instead of actually deleting it). her old number then got reassigned after a few years to a new person by the carrier.
that person reactivated her account and started video-calling her relatives. aunts, cousins etc. and exposed himself to them. like literally all of her aunts have seen his dick by now.
she submitted a takedown notice for impersonation. didn't get a reply. went to file a police report, sent that along with a new takedown application. no response.
after some time we just gave up. we're not in the US, so i guess facebook just doesn't give a fuck and has these requests routed straight to the bin.
Downvoters: I am suggesting that the lack of care by a CEO in his younger years translates directly in his older years as the company grows and reaches global proportions
Every system has some type 1 errors and some type 2 errors. The notion that they could just have neither if they cared a little more is just kind of absurd and doesn't at all reflect the messiness of the world we live in.
Even if Google paid Harvard JDs to read every DMCA notice (of which there literally aren't enough of them), even then they would sometimes be tricked by adversaries and sometimes incorrectly think someone was an adversary some of the time.
I worked at YouTube in the past and I can tell you copyright ownership isn't even fully known by the lawyers. Concretely there's a lot of major songs where the sum of major companies affirming they have partial ownership sums to more than 100% or less than 100%. Literally even the copyright holders don't actually know what they themselves own without lots of errors, and that's without getting into a system that has to try to combat adversarial / bad-faith actors.
If I have 100 customers and I have to spend 1 hour a week dealing with legal compliance requests then if I have 200 customers I have to spend 2 hours a week dealing with legal compliance requests, but I also have more resources to do it with.
In fact, scale usually makes it easier rather than harder because you can take advantage of economies of scale to streamline the process.
And, in the end, if you aren't able to comply with the law then you shouldn't be in that business regardless of your scale.
The only way to guarantee compliance with the DMCA is to remove any content the moment a complaint is submitted.
Copyright can only be determined in court. The fact that not all copyright complaints lead to a video going down is because Google is willing to take on some liability when they believe a complaint is not legit, and leave the video up.
I'm not sure how this is a reply to my comment. What you said applies whether you are hosting 1 video a month or 1,000,000 videos a month. My point was that scale isn't an excuse. What applies to large applies to small and vice versa.
The point is that regardless of the size of the company, copyright is such a shitshow that there are only less bad ways of handling it. The only way for a company to guarantee that they never violate copyright law is to do a takedown every time there is a complaint.
Obviously, this is not something they can do, because offering random people the ability to take down random videos with only the courts as recourse would be a disaster. Neither do these companies want to be in the business of deciding if a complaint is valid or not, because if they decide one way and then a judge decides the other, they get screwed.
Google tries to take a measured stance and evaluate complaints for obvious issues, but otherwise they do generally just act on them, and if the other parties involved can't agree on whether or not there is infringement, they just throw their hands up and tell them to take it to court.
Copyright is so complicated and fraught that it's virtually impossible to manage it in a way that satisfies everyone, regardless of how big or small a player is.
> And, in the end, if you aren't able to comply with the law then you shouldn't be in that business regardless of your scale.
Again, you're talking from a moral standpoint, but it's not practical. Who's going to stop Google or other corporations from tracking DMCAs the current way?
> Why does scale matter?
Because of resources. Any defined process needs resources to be implemented; law enforcement is no different.
Google provides services at scale by means of automating the shit of them. The only way to identify legit from fake claims at that level is to also create an automated resolution process, with the results we see.
You may want to limit Google size by forcing them to perform human reviews for all their customer service interactions; but again, how are you going to force them into compliance? You'd need a US judiciary system the size of Google to do it.
> You may want to limit Google size by forcing them to perform human reviews for all their customer service interactions
You've inferred that, but I didn't make this claim. A sensible strategy would involve automating as much as possible while allowing for the ones that matter (e.g. OP's example) to be escalated.
Clearly you can't do that if, as in OP's case, you don't even perform any automated ID checks before telling the complainant that their ID hasn't been verified.
> Again, you're talking from a moral standpoint
Not at all. I'm taking the legal standpoint. I say nothing about whether this particular law, or any other law, is moral or not. Complying with the law is a basic requirement that any company has to satisfy. Why should Google be any different just because it's big? You seem to be suggesting that laws should only apply to small entities and that once you go above a certain scale, you are above the law.
Again, if you simply cannot comply with the law for some reason (as you seem to be suggesting applies to Google) then you shouldn't be running that business at all because, after all, doing so implies doing something illegal.
If you have 100 customers, they are all authentic. If you have 100,000,000 customers, 15,000,000 are bad actors racking their brains on how to game your system.
I was a long time Emacs user, spent way too much of my life in ~/.emacs.d/init.el. I don't use it for anything other than magit any more. I just tried it again, first by upgrading my packages in package.el. Of course, everything is still locked up when I `package-menu-execute` to upgrade packages. I guess in a thousand years it will still be mostly single-threaded, with almost every action locking up the UI thread.
Yes, these cross platform frameworks speed up developing easy and boring things but actively gets in the way the moment you venture out for more esoteric platform-specific features. Overall time savings is questionable, especially in the AI age where you get a lot more speedup for the easy and boring things with better documentation and more training corpus. Not recommended (from someone who made the switch back to separate native codebases), unless your app can basically be a web app anyway.
Yes building a native app has fewer layers of abstraction and often has better DX than building with a cross-platform framework where you have to work around bugs that inevitably exist in the framework.
Cross-platform frameworks I find are more about making sure that your apps stay consistent across platforms over time as they are maintained. Features land on all platforms at the same time.
I worked on a product that had been around a long time and had a separate macOS, windows, iOS, android, and web apps. It was a big a big shit-show when product leadership wanted to make large scale changes across all platforms in unison. For that product though it really did have to be native to each platform and I don't think any cross platform framework could have worked for that particular product.
Having worked with both native apps & cross-platform frameworks, I do think there is value in cross-platform frameworks as long as the framework allows you to drop down to native platform specific code easily where needed.
When it comes to mobile, I think that React Native has some serious benefits:
- Fast refresh: incredible DX improvement to be able to just save a file and instantly see the behavior of your app update without rebuilding and reinstalling.
- Server-driven UI via React Server Components (still experimental): Companies like AirBnB spend a ton of engineering effort to build their own bespoke server-driven UI frameworks. Expo Router is bringing React Server Components to native apps.
- Automatic deep linking: If you also ship your app for the web using Expo Web & Expo Router, then all your links work perfectly as deep links into your app because your web app and your native app have the exact same routing. If you use next.js with solito for your web app instead of Expo Router, you can also keep your web app in lock-step with your native app without having to use Expo Router for your web app.
- Over the Air Updates: You can ship changes to your apps instantly without app store review.
- Can drop down to native easily: These days you can easily build an expo module or if you need really high performance build a nitro module and leverage the native platform APIs where you really need it. I mean look at react-native-vision-camera, it's so much easier to use than the native camera APIs.
- LLMs are way better at react than they are at swift & kotlin development.
If I wanted to build the next TikTok though I'd 100% go full native.
Watching BBC news earlier, two interviewees were acolytes of Venuzuelan politician and exile Maria Corina Machado, who recently received the Nobel Peace Prize, and Juan Guaidó, the former American-backed coup (or whatever you want to call it) leader. They were adamantly pro-Maduro getting helicoptered away, but somewhat neutral on bombings on their own capital city. I think the consent factory is still making porkie pies.
Machado seems to be the opposite of an exile until she escaped to accept the Nobel Peace Prize last month.
Machado was prohibited from leaving Venezuela by a decade-old
government-imposed travel ban and, by late 2025, had spent months in hiding
amid the risk of arrest.
Yeah it’s surprising how little justification there’s been for this. As a well-read US citizen, I don’t actually know why we did this.
Was it for oil? Socialism bad? To stop drugs? I think you latter is the narrative I’m most familiar with.
Immigration would be the most logical, since this administration and political base care a lot about that, but I don’t think they’ve drawn a clear line between economic success and emigration. Logic isn’t exactly a cornerstone for these idiots.
I’m guessing we did it to flex and distract from our own economy, but usually there is at least some pushed narrative for why America did the thing?
Geopolitically the US has abandoned world hegemony and is consolidating in the western hemisphere.
Venezuela has massive oil reserves and its leadership has been anti-Zionist since Chavez.
It’s a juicy target close to home, been a thorn for decades, and not as prickly as Iran or Yemen.
But you’re right, it’s noteworthy they are not attempting to sell interventionism to the public anymore. 15 years ago they’d have staged a color revolution and gone with the populist uprising narrative. They seem to have dropped the narcoterrorist narrative already. The use of raw force without moral justification is a sign of decline. The Twitter right is trying to sell this as an imperial / Nietzschean triumph but few are going to buy it.
I think it’s just realpolitik grand chessboard strategy. Knocking out an unfriendly/uncooperative leader of a strategically important country. That’s always been the real justification for US foreign policy. It’s a game of risk, without moral considerations beyond optics. There isn’t much more to it than that.
You can be socialist if you cooperate. You can be a dictator if you cooperate. It’s not about political philosophy or forms of government, just playing ball with the hegemon.
The media has been branding maduro a narco-terrorist for a while now. And trump has declared fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction and exclusively blamed venezuela for it. The establishment has a playbook and they stick to it. Let's not forget the nobel committee gave a "peace prize" to a woman advocating for war against venezuela.
Venezuela has been linked to the fentanyl crisis. "The Trump administration has described strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific as attacks against terrorists attempting to bring fentanyl and cocaine to the US.
However, fentanyl is produced mainly in Mexico and reaches the US almost exclusively via land through its southern border."
The 'wars on drugs' and the 'war on terror' have been abused many times in the past to just do whatever person 'x' wanted to do anyway. See also: National security.
reply