The maintainer you and said that they tirelessly tested, reviewed and verified changes over the course of 3 weeks to make sure that things were running and operating correctly.

This is how it should be done. It’s not like they’re vibe coding this.

Pretty much.

I’ve started using AI on a project last week and the first thing I do is write tests. Lots of tests.

With enough guardrails, you could actually get pretty decent quality output out of it and with enough regression tests, you can ensure that nothing’s actually breaking.

Similarly, reviewing its changes and actually reading the code that’s being generated to ensure correctness is necessary. However, I am finding ways to automate that and reduce the incident rate of problems to even lower than my co-workers.

That’s an abysmally bad idea. This would be a wet dream for companies like Meta.

Effectively that would lock in the monopoly by huge social media platforms and absolutely no one would be able to try and make alternatives.

That idea would raise the bar for entry into social media to such a degree that only establish platforms can maintain themselves.

Which would make things like Lemmy, anything on the fedaverse, any third-party or fledgling social media platform…etc defunct overnight. And the only options would be existing, abusive, monopolistic, corporate managed platforms.

Well yes of course but also restricting access to information machines doesn’t exactly help much either.

The line between medical advice and personal research is pretty freaking gray, so banning medical advice. Does that also ban talking to llms about anything that is medical adjacent?

Does medical adjacent mean personal disabilities? Drug related interests? Pet health? Stretches? Pain support?

Anything that falls under “Health, Wellness, and Fitness”?

…etc

It’s a slippery slope and we don’t need to be sliding down it

I always love it when folks who don’t actually know what they’re talking about, comment like they do…

It’s not just the browser. This example is the browser, but it’s your entire system stability that is affected by random bit flips.

Honestly yeah it’s 100% checks out.

I have device that has ECC ram and I can keep it online and applications running for well over 18 months with no stability issues.

However, both my work computers and my personal computer start to become unstable after about 15 to 20 days. And degrade over the course of 1 to 2 years (with a considerable increase in the number of corrupt system files)

Firefox and chrome start to become unstable after usually a week if they have really high memory usage.

That’s literally not possible.

I’m not talking about from a practical standpoint I’m talking about from a theoretical standpoint.

Given that social media being a form of media where humans socialize with each other is not something that can be banned because humans are intrinsically social creatures and modern technology facilities media based communication.

What we don’t need is social media banned. We need regulation and enforcement and teeth for those regulations.

Almost all of the bad and negative parts of social media are results of companies driving profits and engagement at the cost of everything else, including the well-being of their users (Such as artificially, inflating, negativity and division because that drives more engagement).

Mixed feelings.

On one hand they are responsive and present, that’s already rare.

On the other they don’t know how their own software works, that’s concerning. But can be excused if it’s say a framework.

This is a core problem with federated software.

It’s EXTREMELY high cost compared to centralized models. The cost per user is through the roof, and larger instances (Which are still absolutely miniscule on the web) can barely stay afloat with their costs.

Why?

Yeah ofc they are chasing the buck.

It’s either they find alternatives revenue streams or we no longer have Firefox as a viable alternative anymore.

Browsers development is crazy engineering heavy, and thus, expensive.

It’s a shitty situation all around.

Yeah it’s a catch 22.

They either fail to get a big enough use base because their core users are not enough and they fail from a lack of funding.

Or they try to follow trends to increase their appeal and user base, and annoy their core users.

Most users don’t realize that Mozilla is doing what Google is doing with Chrome with an engineering team 1/4 the size of the chrome team. And that the grand majority of their costs are engineering related.

Browsers are expensive, and Mozilla needs to find revenue streams to pay for it.

Contact centers, software development, automation, images and video analysis, data analysis, semantic search, entity recognition, advertising, misinformation campaigns, social media, security scanning & automation…etc

Many of these are cross-cutting across many sectors, some of these are sectors you don’t think of as they are driven by government entities.

And many of these have boring quiet tools and integrations that you don’t hear about because they “just work”.

You only hear about the shit that doesn’t work. Not the shit that does work.

Edit: inb4 a reply of a narrow use case or shitty implementation that, obviously, doesn’t work, which I already called out as a bias.

To be clear, it only wildly fails to meet expectations in sectors that you hear about.

It’s most definitely medium expectations in sectors you don’t hear about because news and social media have a huge negativity bias because that gets views and engagement.

If we want to fight this scourge, we need to be more informed about it.

You can thank walled gardens like Discord for that.

Yes the technical term has evolved but did the term evolve in the legislation definition of it?

If not, then the technically correct usage doesn’t matter which is a point I’ve made in another comment as well.

And in my previous comment, I am pointing out the logical inconsistencies. Not that I agree or disagree with the technical terminology. You seem to be conflating a logical explanation/call-out of logic holes for my opinion, which it is not

Your explanation assumes that scope and scale are part of the definition which it is not.

If you keep zooming in or zooming out the definition of E2E keeps changing under your statement.

If the only knowledge a system has is between a sender and a receiver (Which satisfies even your definition of “intended recipient”) then TLS is E2E encrypted.

Do they strictly define end to end encryption in this bill?

If not, then yes, TLS is “end to end” as the sender encrypts the message, and the receiver decrypts it. Each “end” to each “end” is encrypted, satisfying the semantics of the term.

So literally everyone in the UK using any website that uses TLS is now a hostile actor?

Essentially everyone’s a criminal which is a huge boon for the government. They can now get rid of anyone they want at any time, legally.