My reflex is to call the website useless because the problem isn't usually software produced by individuals. My problem is the buggy messes that trillion dollar corporations produce.
I mean, look at Microsoft. They're a tiny little 5 trillion dollar company and their own cloud storage software can't reliably extract zip files compressed with their own compression software on their own flagship operating system.
How dare some nobody in a third world country use AI resources to accelerate the development of some process that fixes an issue for them and occasionally ask you to buy them a coffee when a poor sad pathetic evil worthless hateful disgusting miserable useless 5 trillion dollar company that actively hates you does the same thing with worse results that makes your life more miserable while lining their pockets with every penny in the entire world?!
Indeed, Adobe continues shipping their slop and by all accounts of those who keep using it continue to make it worse, this was all in motion well before modern AI tools. If anything, I bet AI tools are more likely to make things better. I read an anti-AI opinion recently where they had a sense that a small open source project was using AI (and were right, it was easy to see by noticing Claude in the commit history) but what tipped their sense was there were too many "professionalisms" in the code base. Oh no, more code that has documentation and tests and benchmarks, the horror! I also just can't take these "it's stinking up the commons" posts all that seriously -- like where have you been the last couple decades? The baseline seems as likely to improve as to degrade more than it already has. Even the spam of useless pull requests isn't new, the peak of that was probably with peak MOOC popularity some years ago when classes would require submitting pull requests to some open source project as an assignment.
This is something I've personally explored and lightly researched. I think the general population generally prefers recommendation algorithms (they espouse how great _their_ for-you page is on tik-tok or how spotify suggests the best music).
You would also be combating against ad and social media companies with extremely deep pockets. You have to keep in mind that algorithmic sorting also would impact search engines like Google and a ton of shopping websites.
I personally think the way this has to be done is something more fundamental and "grassroots-like". Similar to how a significant chunk of the internet are against "AI content" I think that same group of people need to be shown that this algorithmic recommendation brainrot is impacting society considerably.
edit: To take this point further, as an American, I have been wondering why people would disagree on basic principals or what feels like facts. The problem is that their online experience is completely different than mine. No two people share an exact same home page for any service. How are you supposed to get on the same page as someone when they live in a practically different world than you?
> I think the general population generally prefers recommendation algorithms
Not really. It's a dopamine addiction, like a gambling addict 'preferring' that a casino is nearby. But they know it makes them miserable. That's why people would pay money to quit.
I definitely don't disagree there! I think I am on the same page as you as far as goals. I just am unfortunately a bit more jaded and pessimistic about the unending reach of these platforms.
The timidity and lack of vision from politicians everywhere is a disgrace. All it would take is one successful case study in one country, and most other countries would follow.
That's not really what the survey said. In fact, it found that the overwhelming majority of users would pay good money to continue using those platforms.
> The answers suggest users value these platforms a lot, on average by US$59 per month for TikTok and $47 for Instagram. An overwhelming 93 per cent of TikTok users and 86 per cent of Instagram users would be prepared to pay something to stay on them.
$59/month was the average claim for how much they'd pay to stay on TikTok.
They even cite other studies that came up with similar numbers, so it's not a fluke.
The part about paying to be off of them was about a hypothetical scenario where everyone on their campus agreed to some deal where they all stopped using one of the platforms together at the same time.
That's how they arrived at those weird numbers for paying to quit as a group. Like all studies that ask hypothetical questions about how much people would pay for some outcome, the real world value is always less. When you start introducing impossible constraints like "everyone else would quit" it becomes even more disconnected from reality.
Supply and demand. Selling via grey markets is an option, but many white hats don't go that route due to risk. There's plenty of people that will also find vulnerabilities without any money attached.
That's a limited view. The damage this could cause should be accounted for. People don't have to sell shit, they could fuck things up just for the fun of it. That's something to consider, especially with a bunch of teenagers. Now, these big corpos didn't take the chance to sponsor and encourage these kids early careers and make this fuck-up good PR, at least.
That's not how economics works. I can't do my job without a computer or glasses but that doesn't mean I can pay the suppliers of these things most of my salary each. Preventing a 100k€ problem says almost nothing about what the payout should be. As for them just causing chaos for fun, that nets them just about nothing (what's an evening of fun worth, like what are you willing to pay for a cinema ticket?). This is certainly more (hundreds of times more) and so covers that risk as well
In an ideal world, these bugs, especially low-hanging fruits, shouldn't be discoverable by some random kids. These billion dollar companies should have their own security researchers constantly monitoring their stack. But those costs are cut, because the law de facto doesn't hold them liable for getting hacked. It's a very good deal for companies to pay bug bounties, but they mostly cheap out on that, too.
It's like a finders reward elsewhere in life. If you lost your wallet, your immaterial and material loss is quite high, but apart from cash the contents are of way less value for a finder/thief. These type of rewards are meant to manipulate emotions and motivation. Twitter paid these kids each between $1 and $20. That's insulting. As I said elsewhere, bug bounties are PR. And it's bad PR in this case. Black market pricing is the absolute low end for valuation (it's basically the cash value in the wallet example).
> these bugs, especially low-hanging fruits, shouldn't be discoverable by some random kids. These billion dollar companies should have their own security researchers [...]
I'm twice this kid's age and have been doing this hobby-turned-work as long as they have. I can tell you the work we do is no different. It doesn't matter if you're 16 or 64 or what your credentials are or salary is. We're all just hackers. Hacker ethos is judging by skill, not appearance. Welcome to hacker news :P
> Twitter paid these kids each between $1 and $20.
The submission doesn't say they've even contacted Xitter. I thought it was in the title just to drop names that we've heard of that used this dependency. Did you legit find somewhere that they got ≤20$ for an exploitable XSS on the x.com or twitter.com domains? That is definitely a strangely low amount but then I'm not surprised by anything where Elon is involved. It could also have been a silent fix without even replying to the reporter; I've had that often enough. But yeah from X I would expect a few hundred dollars at least and from old twitter (or another legit business) more than that (as Discord demonstrated)
Get off your high horse. In this instance it's been a kid, and it does not concern some highly arcane flaw in a crypto library or chained kernel exploit, which may have passed even a pro. I already implied this bug should have been found by in-house security, so obviously it's within the domain of professionals and teenagers alike.
> The submission doesn't say they've even contacted Xitter.
This one doesn't. This one does: https://heartbreak.ing/. Or at least, I presume they meant Twitter when they wrote "one company valued 44 billion".
I've rarely gotten bug bounty money and not even always a written thank-you but it doesn't cross my mind to somehow seek out a malicious actor that wants to make use of what I found. Leave the place better than you found it and all that
Wow, I was under the impression that these were selling incredibly well.
I started to appreciate Ford's strategy recently after they lost my faith after they killed off sedans in the US. I'm now confused again by the company's strategy
The only two car companies to make any meaningful profit on EVs were founded as EV companies first?
That’s not that surprising. It’s very hard to make elephants dance.
If that remains true it means all these auto companies will be dead in 25 years, or eternally strung along on government support.
If there were no tariffs or other market barriers I get the impression that BYD would bulldoze the entire world and there would be one car maker with >80% of the market.
This video here describes why BYD is so competitive: They have done a splendid job vertically integrating as much as they can to get the price down. This $11,500 EV is an excellent example of how other companies should start to shift their thinking.
Seems like it is sold for around 18,000 Euros. It obviously passed European safety standards, no point in getting homologation certification for the US if it remains tariffed to high hell but if they wanted to I'd assume they can pass US standards as well.
Yeah, the problem is that the tariffs are letting our carmakers just become unproductive, uncompetitive leeches on the American consumer. They're getting lapped by China/BYD.
Once BYD bulldozes the rest of the world, our domestic manufacturers are guaranteed to fail.
100% on BYD ... no one can match their current technology and pricing power. And it's possible they still will do that bulldozing, but much more slowly. Even now I'm seeing strong swapping out of Tesla's for BYD's in London.
They were not losing money on each sale, that's silly. Your article is counting the entire EV R&D budget and extrapolating. For every Lightning they sold, the margins improved. They just did not sell enough of them to make the overall venture profitable.
Well sure, but that's the only possible way to lose money: costs are more than profit from sales. See "profit margin". R&D is a cost that can't be avoided. In this case, that cost was so much more that they're cancelling the program.
What scares me about Claude Code (and ai developer tools in general) is that a small model update could change how I interact with the tool entirely. There's no freezing the communication style that I need to use for good results.
I suspect that this is already a big reason why we get so many conflicting signals on "the best coding model". People tune into the style of the model they use the most, and hit snags and friction when they take another model for a spin.
Most iOS users report that Android is a disaster of an operating system, with layers and layers of user frustration. In reality, they actually are just totally in tune with how iOS does stuff. I can only imagine we have something similar going on here.
My impression is people build very fragile Rube Goldberg devices on top of the models and those things break. That's not to say anything is wrong about the Rube Goldberg machines! They're very interesting and do new things (and they help me understand how things work). I'm just saying that there's probably a significant misattribution about where the fragility exists.
What do you mean exactly? Some people like being able to watch YouTube and Netflix without utilizing a third party device.
The tv also has a microprocessor to upscale/decode content. Most tvs also have the ability to connect to a variety of sound systems through Bluetooth.
If your concern is additional cost for the bundled features, I believe the ads subsidize and offset the cost. (I'm not pro ad. Again, I do not connect my tv to the Internet, but let's not reject the benefits entirely).
"Non smart" TVs are prohibitively expensive in my experience. They are large format monitors. You can also consider a projector.
