I've actually had this discussion quite a few times (for someone in a field not at all related to taxes)
Where it gets "complicated" (aka no longer a "one click sign and verify") is when you start adding things that are "nonstandard" - "standard" meaning single w2, standardized deduction, etc. According to Intuit[0] as well as other research[1], only ~40% of US taxpayers follow this format.
This is compared to the 87.7% of surveyed tax administrations[2] (which does include the US) that have the infrastructure to pre-populate basic wage and salary data. The difference is that in countries like Denmark or Sweden, that simple data represents near-100% of what is needed for the vast majority of citizens.
So for example, even if the US might know exactly how much you made on a 1099 (which is freelance, independent contractor, etc), they wouldn't know your expenses.
Oftentimes though, even if you do have these more complicated returns your W2 (which is the "simple" part) can at least be auto-filled. It's just the rest of the stuff the government doesn't necessarily know about.
(note: I'm by no means a tax expert and may be misinterpreting this data)
> I find it difficult to read a markdown file of more than a hundred lines.
Apologies if I'm slightly demeaning here, but what? Markdown is largely plaintext. Unless the output is completely littered with markdown formatting (specifically, imo, tables and maybe links would be the hardest for a human to parse), is this not just saying "I have a difficult time reading large bodies of text" (which is of course fine - people prefer different ways ingesting information)
From reading the post, this seems like a "I personally prefer more visual, interactive elements in output" rather than "agents using markdown leads for less understandable output", and not at all what I would recommend for the average person to use unless said agent or interface or whatever had an extremely seamless way of displaying the HTML. If I had to open the agents response in a browser every time I wanted anything detailed I would lose my mind.
I've certainly had agents generate more rich visualizations such as through html, but I can't imagine using that as my default.
Granted I've only been using MacOS for a few years as my work machine, but am I missing something here? Is the Mac CMD+tab already not nearly identical to to windows alt+tab?
Are you just referring to the switcher switching through apps vs windows?
Would vote to keep them separate. They seem independent enough to warrant their own discussion based only (or rather, mostly) on the content from each link.
edit: merging this and glasswing as underdeserver stated would probably be fine
Section 5 (p.143) is very interesting to read. Admittedly my knowledge of how LLMs works is low, but nonetheless I don't think this changed my views of just seeing models as machines/programs. (which to be clear, I don't think was the intention of that section)
Other comment already said, but it seems it was likely a clone of the web interface rather than the actual teams client. You can see a lot more details in this comment on the github thread (not by the axios maintainer, but goes over the same threat group and campaign) https://github.com/axios/axios/issues/10636#issuecomment-418...
It exists, it's called FACEIT (for CS, specifically). Anyone who seriously cares about the game at a high level is pretty much exclusively playing there.
Community moderation simply doesn't work at scale for anticheat - in level of effort required, root cause detection, and accuracy/reliability.
The amount of people in this thread who very clearly don't play competitive video games, let alone at a remotely high level, is astounding. The comment "it's your god given right to cheat in multiplayer games" might legitimately be one of the most insane takes I've ever read.
Kernel anticheat does work. It takes 5 seconds to look at Valve's record of both VAC (client based, signature analysis) and VACNet (machine learning) to know the cheating problem with those technologies is far more prevalent than platforms that use kernel level anticheat (e.g. FACEIT, vanguard). Of course, KLAC is not infallible - this is known. Yes, cheats do (and will continue to) exist. However, it greatly raises the bar to entry. Kernel cheats that are undetected by FACEIT or vanguard are expensive, and often recurring subscriptions (some even going down to intervals as low as per day or week). Cheat developers will 99% of the time not release these publicly because it would be picked up and detected instantly where they could be making serious money selling privately.
As mentioned in the article, with DMA devices you're looking at a minimum of a couple hundred dollars just for hardware, not including the cheat itself.
These are video games. No one is forcing you to play them. If you are morally opposed to KLAC, simply don't play the game. If you don't want KLAC, prepare to have your experience consistently and repeatedly ruined.
Where it gets "complicated" (aka no longer a "one click sign and verify") is when you start adding things that are "nonstandard" - "standard" meaning single w2, standardized deduction, etc. According to Intuit[0] as well as other research[1], only ~40% of US taxpayers follow this format. This is compared to the 87.7% of surveyed tax administrations[2] (which does include the US) that have the infrastructure to pre-populate basic wage and salary data. The difference is that in countries like Denmark or Sweden, that simple data represents near-100% of what is needed for the vast majority of citizens.
So for example, even if the US might know exactly how much you made on a 1099 (which is freelance, independent contractor, etc), they wouldn't know your expenses. Oftentimes though, even if you do have these more complicated returns your W2 (which is the "simple" part) can at least be auto-filled. It's just the rest of the stuff the government doesn't necessarily know about.
(note: I'm by no means a tax expert and may be misinterpreting this data)
[0] https://turbotax.intuit.com/personal-taxes/online/free-editi...
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-simple-return-reducin...
[2] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/tax-administration-2025...