It gets even worse. The person not only kept the laptop and used an exploit to download confidential Apple documents, they bragged about it to a contact who was still working at Apple who was also feeding him information:
> Liu allegedly kept an Apple-issued laptop after departing the company and exploited a vulnerability to download dozens of confidential Apple documents while he was working at OpenAI. He also maintained a relationship with Yu-Ting "Alyssa" Peng, an Apple employee who continued to give him updates on Apple's projects, vendor decisions, and engineering details. When Liu learned he still had access to Apple's systems, he texted Peng "LOL, I found out I can access the [network storage], so funny."
This is how you behave when you think you're so much smarter than everyone around you that consequences don't apply to you.
Whenever I leave a company I make sure everything that belongs to the company goes back to them and I wipe any access credentials or authenticator codes that might be on any of my devices. I can't imagine being so brazen that you'd keep the company laptop and then start using an exploit to download confidential information for your new employer.
Doing it at a the company that most aggressively enforces secrecy is even crazier.
> he said he does like how they manage the project.
That's the diplomatic part. He sidesteps the problems by saying that he doesn't agree with all of it (which leaves it ambiguous) but then pivots to praising the way they're unapologetic and weird.
> I don’t agree with all of it but I so respect that they are unapologetically weird.
That's the most eloquently diplomatic way to address it. He really does have a way with words.
At the same time, it makes me a little sad that when pressed, the best thing that could be said about Zig is that it's unapologetically weird right after a sentence about not agreeing with how they manage the project.
I had high hopes for Zig, but the current situation feels like they're actively moving toward being a niche language and away from being something that I could make a case for in a business context.
The wording could have been more clear: Instead of "what you'll pay" it should have said "what your organization will pay".
Everything else about the e-mail is clear that it's about the organization, though. I don't know why this person would think they're going to start getting bills "per committer" of the organization where they're not already the responsible party for billing. Like GitHub just decided that they're going to start billing this one person for every committer in the org, but only for this one feature?
No, nobody is getting bills from GitHub for trivial things they didn't sign up for. This feature wasn't even available on free personal accounts.
One of the organizations they're a part of has it enabled. The e-mail should have had more details, but they only cut out a little section.
The person posting this is confused because they think they're getting the bill. The e-mail says it's about the organization. The organization admin controls billing.
And no, a SaaS service isn't going to send anyone to collections for a small feature like this. If you don't pay your bill the service just gets turned off until you pay it. You have to get a substantial balance accumulated before it becomes something they send to collections.
The person writing this doesn't have the feature. It would have had to be enabled by someone on a GitHub org they were a member of.
It's not even available on personal free plans like the person says they have. Either the e-mail was sent in error, or it's enabled by someone else in an organization they're a member of.
> I don't see that tab, so either the docs are out of date, and it's called something else now, or it's not on all accounts/all repos.
Correct. It's only for certain plans like GitHub Team and Enterprise Cloud.
The weird part about this e-mail is that they said they recently left some organizations because "the tone of the paid services" increased. So either they're still a member of one of these organizations, or GitHub mistakenly sent the e-mail to past members?
I'm a GitHub admin. Did not receive this e-mail. We don't have the GitHub Code Quality feature enabled anywhere, though.
The e-mail seems clear: Someone enabled the feature in the organization. The feature was in free preview, but the free preview is ending. If they leave it enabled, it will be billed at the new rate.
It's pretty clear that "organization" is being used throughout the e-mail, so they're not referring to this person's free personal GitHub account.
Apple knows the market demand for this type of device.
You may have paid $50,000 for it, but you’re only one customer. At Apple scale they need to focus their finite resources on the products that serve the largest market demand.
$50,000 rack mount servers are not a large demand.
Magazines primarily make money through advertising.
Even that “curated” content is often the result of a company’s PR professionals sending free gear for review and possibly wining and dining the writers.
> Eight states had fewer than three ambulances covering every 1,000 square miles of land area (the Western states of Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, New Mexico, and Idaho; and the Midwestern states of North Dakota and South Dakota).
There are some good points above, but I think this one is a distraction. Many of those states on that list have low ambulance densities because they have low population densities.
Have you ever driven through Wyoming or Montana? They have less than 10 people per square mile on average. There are a couple clusters of cities and then miles of empty land.
These statistics need to be based on cities, or at least have population density taken into account. It doesn't compute to set a threshold for ambulances per square mile when the population density differs so much from state to state.
> We can literally write "these laws apply only apply to Facebook and TikTok" into the laws.
I don’t find it useful to imagine laws like this. This isn’t what happens in real law making.
I’m talking about real, actual laws that are getting passed.
It’s not going to be perfectly targeted at websites you don’t use while leaving everything you like free, open, and privacy preserving.
It’s really important that we’re being realistic and honest about this. Inviting bad laws into the internet with fantasies about how they’ll be carefully scoped and limited to other websites is not realistic.
Applying stiff financial penalties for allowing kids to sign up for social media sites is another way of saying that you want to have to provide your ID to log in to social sites.
Reddit, YouTube, Discord, and even Hacker News qualify as social sites. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have to start providing ID to log in to everything.
If you think these imaginary laws would only apply to Facebook and TikTok, you must have missed all of the discussion where they've been extended to many more sites with social features. Goodbye privacy!
> Yeah, this is most directly comparable to xAI Grok 4.5.
Grok 4.5 has a relatively high $0.50 per 1M cached input token rate, compared to $0.15 on this model.
Grok 4.5 cached input costs the same as Opus 4.8 cached input, which is going to make it a lot more expensive to use for multi-turn coding than many would assume from the $2/$6 headline numbers they led with.
True, but it’s still another level of NUMA with lower throughput and higher latency. In consumer boards with limited extra high speed lanes it could be a lot slower than main DDR5 RAM. Wouldn’t be fun to have your game or app run a lot slower if it happened to be loaded into the wrong part of memory.
> Liu allegedly kept an Apple-issued laptop after departing the company and exploited a vulnerability to download dozens of confidential Apple documents while he was working at OpenAI. He also maintained a relationship with Yu-Ting "Alyssa" Peng, an Apple employee who continued to give him updates on Apple's projects, vendor decisions, and engineering details. When Liu learned he still had access to Apple's systems, he texted Peng "LOL, I found out I can access the [network storage], so funny."
This is how you behave when you think you're so much smarter than everyone around you that consequences don't apply to you.
Whenever I leave a company I make sure everything that belongs to the company goes back to them and I wipe any access credentials or authenticator codes that might be on any of my devices. I can't imagine being so brazen that you'd keep the company laptop and then start using an exploit to download confidential information for your new employer.
Doing it at a the company that most aggressively enforces secrecy is even crazier.