What does Backblaze's backup software have to do with B2? Backblaze B2 is just storage that exposes the same API as S3. You can use any backup software that supports S3 as a target.
Oh golf carts were awesome in small lake communities in PA. Was much better than driving cars down those narrow roads and made much more sense for shorter distances. Plus kids got more freedom since we were allowed to drive the carts well before we could get drivers licenses (Might not be good to be as lax in a larger city though)
I'm sort of happy to see all these things I run into listed out as issues people have so I know it's not just me experiencing and being bothered by these behaviors.
All of these bother me, but the null/default-value returns drive me insane. It makes the code more verbose and difficult to follow, and in many cases makes the code force its way through problems that should be making it stop. Please, LLM, please just throw an exception!
I wish they made this clearer as being the issue. It's what it came across to me like, but I couldn't actually say for sure that's what they meant because the CVE pages didn't make it obvious. And the comments here didn't help because everyone is just complaining about feature creep rather than discussing the actual problem.
Anyway, what this now has me thinking is, should protecting against this be expected to be done per-app or should it be at the OS level? It seems like it would make more sense to have the OS keep records on what application is allowed to open what kinds of links. Maybe with some mechanism to allow the app to cooperate with the OS if they want finer-grained permissions (such as a chat app passing the poster's user ID to the OS when invoking the link, so you could set an 'always allow' rule for links from specific users rather than the full app).
I don't think using something fun as an attack vector is anything new at all. It's an easy way to have someone let their guard down because you want to play around and aren't thinking how something silly could actually be out to get you.
I've noticed that it's super easy to end up with tons of extra lines of code when using AI. It will write code that's already available (whether that's in external libraries, internal libraries, or code already the same project). I don't mind trying to keep dependencies down, but I also don't want every project to have its own poorly tested CSV parser.
It also also often fails to clean up after itself. When you remove a feature (one that you may not have even explicitly asked for) it will sometimes just leave behind the unused code. This is really annoying when reviewing and you realize one of the files you read through is referenced nowhere.
You have to keep a close eye out to prevent bloat from these issues.
Absolutely. Even worse, when you ask AI to solve a problem it almost always adds code even if a better solution exists that removes code. If AI's new solution fails, you ask it to fix, it throws even more code, creates more mess, introduces new unnecessary states. Rinse, repeat ad infinitum.
I did this a few times as an experiment while knowing how a problem could be solved. In difficult situations Cursor always invariably adds code and creates even more mess.
I wonder if this can be mitigated somehow at the inference level because prompts don't seem to be helping with this problem.
Same thing happens with infrastructure config. Ask an AI to fix a security group issue and it'll add a new rule instead of fixing the existing one. You end up with 40 rules where 12 would do and nobody knows which ones are actually needed anymore.
if walmart unfairly used its monopolistic position to steal from consumers, then of course i support serving justice.
is the point of this conversation just to proclaim you don't like some guys? what is your claim here? what action do you desire the collective to take? what is the rule that society should follow?
why do you expect that rule to lead to a more prosperous, thriving society?
