i mean, i definitely agree and am somehow allergic to seeing llm written text from other humans (you typed a prompt! why not just post it directly? i'd rather have bad spelling and grammar than llm slop). but... while i feel i can detect it pretty reliably in forums like HN, i can't help but think that this is the toupée fallacy[0] at work. of course, all the text that _i_ think is fake is clearly fake after all
Weird to make reading zshrc supposed unsafe when I happily publish it in my public dotfiles repo... Who the hell keeps API keys in it? OTOH it seems like lots of these AI tools keep appending PATH in it so I guess there's a fundamental misunderstanding of shell best practices in the entire AI space...
Additionally, killing the results of `lsof` is _not_ safe - if, say, you have the web page open in firefox, or a client subshell in the agent itself, then boom, there goes firefox and the agent.
Yeah, the game seems to assert that the kill is safe to run because Claude told me it was safe. But that's the point, I'm not supposed to trust Claude.
Likewise I got dinged for denying a random stash-rebase-pop operation. I have no idea what the repo state is like right now. That could be a wild mess of a waste of time. It says I'm doing a refactor, so OK I guess rebase on main is a good idea. But hell no I'm not approving that in the 1 minute before a meeting.
The whole premise IMO is pretty flawed. It's interesting as an ad for the company though.
I'm not sure, maybe the fact that whether a given command is safe or not is subtle, contextual, and contested actually bolsters the point the game is trying to make.
I've done that. They pop up like hydra heads. The point isn't right to delete. The point is right to not have my personal info plastered all over the internet without me having to contact each site and say "plz stop" and for them to say "OK we'll do it in 7-10 business days"
You'd be considered lucky if you can even find an email address. I had some of my personal info crop up on Google searches on Fedora mailing lists, I've emailed various people at Fedora to get them delete my old messages or redact them, but never received a response. :(
Why? This is asserted throughout this HN thread as an obvious truism, but it seems precipiced on some dramatic right wing free market concept of how the world works that I can't tell is coming from the libertarians of hacker news, or is some kind of USA concept.
Why should society let the concept of a company exist if it is actively detrimental to society at large, for the gain of a very few?
Allowing something isn't the same as enforcing it to be allowed. If there's regulation, like with ending roaming charges between countries, then it's required to be followed simultaneously across the EU. If there's a directive, like the Working Time Directive, goals of legislation are set out and each member state is required to introduce legislation that implements it. There's also decisions (for one country for one issue), recommendations and opinions (obviously non binding).
There's also the Court of Justice which is the highest court, but only in EU matters. National courts can refer cases to it, or the commission/member states can bring cases against other member states, if they believe they are not following EU law. This would mean either they are not following a regulation, or that the state has not fully/correctly implemented a directive into their own national laws.
As I understand it, there's no specific regulation or directive aimed at gambling itself. There's things tangentially related (data protection, anti money laundering etc). But since there's no regulation or directive saying "gambling must be allowed", there's nothing stopping a member state banning it completely if they so wish.
The only point in which the EU might step in would be if the law was somehow discriminatory or inconsistent (e.g. we ban all foreign gambling sites, but not our own, we ban lottery tickets but not state run casinos, etc).
reply