LLMON represents a paradigm shift from Network Security to Cognitive Security. As a Caddy middleware, LLMON invisibly proxies your traffic, injecting "poisoned" instructions targeting AI Agents (like GPTBot or ClaudeBot) while ensuring the experience remains undisturbed for human users.
Super timely. Even on my linux box I noticed yesterday that zoom, even though I had "closed" the application, was still running `ps -ef | grep zoom` so I killed it.
After reading this, I've deleted it too. Super weird.
Clarification, I'm talking about a tool like this one that incorporated flow control and process into the wireframes.
> Maybe the barrier is where it should be. Or maybe it should be even higher!
Across the industry people in leadership positions assume that making UI/UX is easy. Those same people are usually the owners or major stakeholders of the project. Any avenue to put more functional ownership back onto that group to empower and educate is a worth endeavor.
It sounds like you don't. But many in my org come to me with an idea, and having them think through the logical pieces and build a functional wireframe would help under resourced people like me so much.
Also, many people just think that business logic for sanitization and validation "just happens." The barrier to wireframing, for them, is too high so they don't. But in this idea, I could see someone submitting a wireframe to me and my response being "well what happens when a phone number is international?" I'm educating stakeholders on the functional cost of producing their idea.
This would theoretically create a feedback loop for future ideas and initiatives as now, they've begun to be educated on the process. They have direct experience.
Anyway, anything to lower that barrier in order to partner with and teach my executives and their supporting staff would be a huge win. At least for me.
Now that is a super interesting idea. Create a flow scheme too so you can process transitions?
flow:success
f1:s1->f1:s2->f1:s3
flow:error
f1:e1->f1:e2
edit: another thought is that this concept could encourage people in your org who struggle with wireframe technology to express their ideas. Generationally and across culture, smartphone use is now accepted. People also know how to draw on pencil and paper. Now all you are asking them is a final DSL to express their thoughts. Lower barrier?
edit2: there is also something to be said for having someone step through their wireframe and flow control by taking pictures. It may take the abstract and create something tangible as they can logically piece their work together with actual pieces of paper?
Dramatization has nothing to do with credibility. It is a memory facilitation technique. Because you the reader can remove the drama and distill the critical story elements for further inspection of credibility.
Credibility is found in the citations, which here is only the story teller. As that is only one data point, I totally understand doubting its credibility because one needs more citations and voices for proof.
Further, I never stated I found the story creditable. I was operating from a believability standpoint. Inferring one's experience to weight if the story could possibly be believed. You shared you found it hard to believe based on it's dramatization. Where I shared that I found it completely plausible based on my experience.
And that is my main argument, that in this equation drama shouldn't be used as a weight. Positive or negative.
Edit: For the folks down voting this. Please don't conflate dramatization with persuaion, propaganda, or fake news. Dramatization is a tool used in those techniques.
Storytelling as a knowledge share is fundamental to human culture. Drama and story refinement are required to make the knowledge easy to remember and spread.
As for you being convinced, my personal experience is that this story is entirely believable. Many of us in security have stories we cannot share that would make this one look like a Saturday morning cartoon.