You're citing some of the results of a runaway healthcare industrial complex, such as drug prices, as reasons why the thing that would keep such a complex from emerging won't work.
Employers might be contributing more to healthcare costs, but that's because they have to in order to keep coverage for their employees at all as premiums increase, and individual out-of-pocket costs are still rising as a result of coverage denial and high deductibles.
There is more to a public web service's digital attack surface than what it looks like in a browser. Correlating and using breached passwords from someone's unrelated accounts to their self-hosted service login portals, for example.
It is not the job of the citizenry to prove that surveillance doesn't curb terrorism in order to preserve privacy. It is the job of the government to prove that surveillance DOES curb terrorism to such a degree that privacy MUST be degraded.
>"He said that, based on talks with Uber's senior engineering leaders, he realized higher token usage did not translate into a proportional increase in useful consumer features."
Goodhart's law strikes again at someone with enough power to be both ignorant of it and make others suffer their ignorance. You cannot simply measure productivity by tokens spent just like you can't measure it by hours spent in a chair at a desk.
I would like to think they'll be the only ones punished, should punishment come. And as a disclaimer for what I'm about to say, I'm neither a Wall Street banker nor an AI company executive, so I don't want to accidentally make a specious connection between the two, but...
The 2008 housing crisis affected everyone. Bubbles that get too big pop across the population, whether they're complicit or not. As a little guy in a big world, with no expertise to truly know if there's a meaningful difference, I have a bit of anxiety about it all. I just don't want to catch collateral.
I'm in a position right now where I'm trying to decide if staying in my own field of information security is worth it to me. I have an entire project plan built out for using local models to do some crazy augmentation of my own skill set, e.g. malware development pipelines and vulnerability research.
My biggest problem as an independent contractor is marketing and notoriety. Security has been a race to the bottom for over a decade now, but it's gotten exponentially worse. LLMs can't just do my job, but there are enough people with checkbooks who believe that it can and enough companies out there with an incentive to confirm that belief that it's getting harder for me to find work organically.
A place to see content that is actually relevant to my field with as little algorithmic intervention as possible. There is still a presence within the readership here that verges on philosophical despite being grounded in the technological, and that is why I keep coming back.
It starts with relying less and less (as is possible) on outsourced digital assets such as photo storage, social media accounts, etc. while I'm still alive.
After that, I have strict requirements (and instructions) in my estate for accessing and deleting the few accounts I still need at that time. I'm fortunate enough to have started using a password manager as early as 15 years ago, and used it diligently, so redundant access is as easy as possible.
This is some anecdata, but I'll share it nonetheless as I have a pretty wide network of software and security engineer friends from which I've heard the following.
Almost no one I know wants agent usage to be a zero-sum activity. There are a few oddballs who obviously only got into software for the money, so any means to that end is acceptable. That does not stop those with say-so over things like employment (and, if you're in the USA, the associated healthcare), from treating it as a zero-sum activity.
When engineers are being told to maximize token usage, are constantly being brought into meetings where they're expected to reveal their latest and greatest use of LLMs, and not using enough tokens in your role is seen as a negative, then the pressure starts to creep in. Yes, I know this is silly to most people who read this site, and I agree. It's bonkers. But there is certainly something to the idea of "AI psychosis" in upper management that is making agent use zero-sum company-wide.
I often wonder if whatever it is we currently experience as consciousness or self-awareness was a major contributor to species-wide problems such as climate change.
Having come across Zapffe's "existential elk" theory in the last year, it's hard to not see consciousness as a design flaw rather than an upgrade that sits at the root of the things driving climate change, e.g. hyperconsumerism, rampant use of non-renewable materials, and all the other things we choose into for personal satisfaction despite the negative impacts to the whole.
Might we have been better off without consciousness, or at least not as detrimental to the planet? I don't know.
Ah, okay, thank you. I was expecting it to work more like Mastodon in the sense that I can go to a different instance and interact with accounts seamlessly without having to bring them up in my own instance, but this is fine, too.
I can't comment, follow, like, or anything like that without getting the "Sign in or create your account to join the cookout!" popup. I wasn't trying to cause problems or get downvoted, this is just the the first non-BlueSky PDS I've ever come across and was curious to see the federation work.
I might be missing something about the protocol, but when logged into BlueSky, I can't interact with BlackSky accounts at all. I specifically have to have an account there to even follow a BlackSky account.
I'm not as familiar with ATProto as ActivityPub, but following someone from another Mastodon instance, for example, is seamless as long as I'm logged in to the account I have on my home instance.
That post isn't very clear about what specifically happened on BlueSky that made the author move, and I can't see the full thread he links without having a BlackSky account.
What moderation decisions were made regarding this "Link" user that were suspect, using the post author's word?
My first assessment was honestly as anticlimactic as OP's.
We had to break into a particular unit of a multi-tenant office building. The client wanted us to focus on social engineering, but if we were able to do that, to move on to testing if anyone would see it as suspicious if someone was messing with doors and stuff.
So my partner walked up to the reception desk with a toolbox and a clipboard, claiming to be there for an off-schedule inspection of the elevator fire suppression system. Signed the guestbook with no formal verification, walked into the office area, and sat down to plug his laptop into an ethernet drop.
Meanwhile, after he texted me to let me know he was in, I took the stairs up to a door that led into the back of the target unit and just had to use a traveler's hook to pull door latch open. No guard plates or anything in the way.
Then I walked around in my business casual outfit until I found what looked like an IT closet, waited for a time when no one was in the hall with me, and used an under-the-door tool to pop it open. All their network equipment was in there along with spare laptops and an unlocked IT admin machine on a desk.
From one red teamer to red teamer to another, glad your first assessment went so well and you had a great time. My first physical pentest made me want to never sit in front of a terminal again.
People, as we like to say, are not paid enough to care. At-will employment, company-sponsored healthcare, etc. have employees so focused on their own wellbeing that protecting "the company" is the last thing on their minds, and I can't really blame them. That lady who you barged in on may very well have just been used to micromanaging jerks doing it to her all the time, so she has to seem busy.
Physical security, in my experience, comes down to giving people something to protect which actually benefits them to protect. All the technical controls in the building can fail and one person with enough skin in the game can kill an intrusion attempt in seconds.
The power to impose tariffs is given to Congress in the Constitution. Exceptions are allowed but in rare and specific situations. The fact that SCOTUS struck it down means the tariffs as imposed were unconstitutional.
You can be for tariffs all you want, I'm not here to argue their efficacy. But you absolutely cannot with any intellectual honesty still be on the fence about whether he abused his power given this ruling.
It is not "flip flopping policy" to break the bounds of your Constitutional power and be shut down by one of the branches meant to check you.
Normally I'm pretty good at extending intellectual generosity. But for them, it's at the level of voting for a candidate who supports cuts to Medicaid and then wondering why it's suddenly infinitely harder for me to get through to anyone about assistance (not even for myself, for them) following staffing cuts.
"This isn't what I voted for" is a common utterance. They can't help themselves, so I do my best to help, while they undercut my options to help them.
Employers might be contributing more to healthcare costs, but that's because they have to in order to keep coverage for their employees at all as premiums increase, and individual out-of-pocket costs are still rising as a result of coverage denial and high deductibles.