I just wish Microsoft had a simpler mindset for their OS. Simple, privacy-first, consumer-first defaults and optional upgrades to more enhanced tools via their App Store.
Imagine if instead of Windows Recall being installed and available automatically on machines, they just added Recall as an optional downloadable add-on via the App Store... I don't think it would have received nearly as much backlash.
I don't think creating a separate tier of enhanced OS upgrades would benefit Ubuntu. Ubuntu isn't connected to a multi-billion dollar corporation. Canonical has no resources to offer a free AI-powered Notepad editor. Microsoft is connected to OpenAI, Microsoft has AI-hardware partners, and Microsoft has the in-house resources to create new drivers for new hardware/software compatibility issues.
There will always be valid reasons to use Windows over Ubuntu.
The pricing is very interesting. The company I work for pays $20k for Jira & Confluence and $20k for Slack every year. And this platform claims I can replace both of them for $3600/year? and it's open source? The marketing looks great, so I hope the platform is actually a good competitor. I'd be so curious to see what their revenue is every year.
Basecamp is also the same price. SaaS pricing is all made up. If you're a high-margin SaaS company the idea of spending $40k/yr for this seems... fine. If you're a small business, or you operate on retail margins, you'd laugh them out of the room, and rightly so as there are great tools at far better prices.
The idea of every service charging $15-30 per user per month is a myth perpetuated by companies who themselves have that budget to spend out of their VC funding.
SaaS pricing is so weird because for so many things because the cost to run per user is almost zero, but then the company is spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars developing the software.
Evernote once had a valuation of nearly 2 billion, and like 400 employees.
I replaced it with Obsidian which gives me more value and it was mostly just made by two people, now they list 9 employees, one of whom is the office cat.
Each company for me was just syncing some text and maybe a few larger things like PDFs. The actual cost of that is pennies per year.
I am of the opinion that curl is better simply because you are already in the command line. You can use vim fzf or bash with it. Also curl will be the same on the day you die.
Not only this, but it's worse for the fact that it's in a web browser, vs just being a native app that could be sold once, or at least with a yearly subscription for maintenance at 1/10th of the cost.
The problem is that they realised they could make more money by trying to lock companies into a proprietary API definition platform – they want the design, testing, QA, documentation, etc, all to happen in Postman.
I guess my point here is that being closed is directly against the goals of the technology. Apple's lock-in is either a side effect or potentially even beneficial to their goal of providing a good phone/computer/whatever, whereas commercial lock-in is fairly clearly opposed to creating an API ecosystem that is usable across a range of technologies/consumers/etc.
SaaS pricing is based on how captive the customers can be.
I am not a fan of Atlassian products, but what retains them the most aren't the qualities of the products themselves nowadays, but the integration and plugin ecosystem + the difficulty of exporting the data. Nearly every tool has an integration for either jira, bitbucket, confluence, or all of them. And you would usually dismiss any tool that doesn't have them if you are an Atlassian customer already. Once you have set that up but decide you are paying too much for it, good luck good luck telling your users they will surely lose data/formatting/integrations when migrating to some other tool. This + having to train people to use another tool while companies usually take for granted that their users won't get lost in Jira (which really isn't true).
I was one of the people Garry blocked on Twitter and after this article was published, I was unblocked. So to be fair, it does seem like Garry has taken steps to reverse that.
The beauty of forking/open source is the ability to contribute back to the original project or take over an abandoned project. In this case, the original project Continue.dev isn't abandoned and actually has more traction/commits than the PearAI fork. But what PearAI did not do is a traditional fork. They took the commit history, re-branded everything to PearAI, pushed it up to their own repo, and claimed that the contributors of VSCode & Continue were their own contributors on Twitter.
That's not the spirit of open source. I'm sure the authors of Continue.dev did not intend for their work to be used this way, even if the license is permissive of it.
I'm not sure how to parse this, and one possibility is worse than the other.
Did they go through and alter each commit in the history, making it look as if the committer was talking about brand B instead of brand A at the time they made the commit?
Or did they clone the commit history, and add commits to rebrand, while keeping the historical commits intact?
That's because there's literally no such thing. It's a licensing choice, not a seance. If you don't want people to use your code, license it correctly.
I hope SAP does a hard retrospective on why Wiz's research was not disrupted before they got full cluster admin. Like, I want to know from SAP's side whether they received any alerts for any of this activity and whether they investigated them properly. I wonder if there is any regulation SAP has to follow that requires them to have adequate alerting for suspicious network activity and whether this research can be used to show that they do not.
The problem is that people who do decisions don’t understand the technology. Most IT managers in Germany do not even know how programming works. There are exceptions, but the biggest players are people flying in blindsight.
That's not something I can confirm. I'm getting around in Europe and if anything, German management tends to be very technical, lots of engineers. Maybe not programmers, true, but bona fide engineers.
Usually security researchers are required to reach out to the target before escalating further into the systems, asking for permissions to proceed. This is also something bug bounty programs require as per their rules for their targets in scope. I’d expect this to be the case here as well, given the researcher is employed by a security company.
Researchers also usually mention which points they asked for additional permissions at in writeups, but now always.
This has been happening for years. My theory is the actors running the bots are instructing their bots to use old popular threads as a blueprint to get a bunch of upvotes across all of their accounts at once. The idea being that clearly Reddit users liked the original posts and comments in the past, so the users will upvote it again. Then they sell the accounts to bad actors who are interested in purchasing accounts with real looking post histories.
They don't sell their account to bad actors much anymore, instead they sell services. Want this product or that news story or this ... To have lots of comments and upvote from tens of account. If you search a little you can easily find those shops, they sell for every social media out there and you pay per "thousands of likes" or stuff like that.
They used to be based on super low paid human, then it was bot train the account up then humans use it when it's cooked, and I guess we're now entering the bot from top to bottom era.
If I were Reddit I'd be running some sort of counter-offensive, throwing a few hundred dollars at those services and flagging accounts which upvote my poison pill as sockpuppets.
Yup this is a very old strategy. Years back when I was helping mod a very large (10/15m+) sub, the head mod was running a pipeline in the background to help detect this exact thing.
When you make a transaction on the Bitcoin network (and really every other cryptocurrency), you tack on a fee to the amount of coin you want to send. Miners prioritize higher fee transactions when deciding which transactions to include in the next block. Therefore, to guarantee your inclusion in the next block, you would choose to increase the fee you pay.
So, for this transaction, they chose to pay a $5000 fee to guarantee their placement in this block.
