So it was done on the clock as a project at Developer Relations team, I don't know if that should be called a personal project or not, maybe, it does seem Developer Relations projects could be one person's idea and execution, but just to be clear on what happened.
It was released 2 and a half months before Google IO.
The way I read this, they decided to announce it at Google IO because of the attention the project released by the Developer Relations team got. No one with inside knowledge has said the "official tool" (not from Dev Relations) was already planned when it was released. Maybe it was. Maybe a guy on the Dev Relations team would or should have known it was if it was. Easy for me to believe it was not however.
I want to know if this was hand-coded or what; would love a re-usable template to make exhibitions like this! Very good online display of digitized materials with interpretative journey.
I don't know that I'd call the repo "non-Google-affiliated", but whatever it is, it is still up [1] in a google-owned github organization [2], which also includes several other repos with the line "This is not an officially supported Google product," such as this one that's two years old [3].
So, yeah, whatever it is, I'd say it looks normal.
I don't see anything about the product that made Google leadership look bad? I don't see that anyone else external to Google thought so either, before they fired him? Firing him makes them look bad, however.
I guess "starting to find them preferable" suggests to me you think they work better, but this is surprising to me so I think I may have misunderstood, so I ask!
Like you're saying they work better than the proprietary models (in what ways?), or you find them mostly good enough and prefer the privacy or cost, or what?
Why are they being told anything outside of the test? What is that for? Isn't “can you find this bug in this file?” also a test? It sounds like there are two kinds of tests? I'm clearly confused, I realize.
Makes sense, and the conclusion would be that the goal of trying to ban or censor tools or information that could be used to exploit vulnerabilities is impossible and counter-productive in the first place.
You will end up actually helping the attackers maintain an advantage over the defenders, as they will still find illegal ways to access the illegal tools/information.
Which, I guess, that's really my suspicion, parts of the US government probably actually prefer for the attackers to have an advantage, they consider themselves the biggest baddest attackers and their right to have the abilities to keep attacking sacrosanct.
I admit I hadn't really thought about that before (I don't work specifically in security), but I see your point.
But, so... the solution people think is limiting people's ability to discover and patch vulnerabilities, and hoping the black hats won't find a way anyway? This does not seem like a sustainable or feasible plan. It does, to be honest, make me wonder how much of the government's motivation is ensuring that they have access to vulnerabilities that remain unpatched.
the former nerd type was based on not having social and economic power. people wit social and economic power are inevitably drawn to be assholes (which is what nerds used to know).
Because encouraging a culture of disrespect and bullying is actually bad for security not good for it. Politely decline, please, no need to be rude because of your (not always guaranteed to be correct) perception of where someone (or some thing!) is coming from.
Shouldn't it get swapped out of RAM if it's not being used for a long time? My understanding was that modern memory management is very good at this, there's no need to be shutting idle things down and starting them up all the time. I could be wrong.
This whole thing seems kind of silly to me I must admit. It seems obvious that Claude Desktop needs a VM for security for the majority of it's actual real world use. VM's take up memory, yeah. Them's the breaks. If other competitors have managed to provide as good (or ideally better) security scenario with less RAM, that would be interesting, but just complaining about it seems weird and uninformed to me.
It was released 2 and a half months before Google IO.
The way I read this, they decided to announce it at Google IO because of the attention the project released by the Developer Relations team got. No one with inside knowledge has said the "official tool" (not from Dev Relations) was already planned when it was released. Maybe it was. Maybe a guy on the Dev Relations team would or should have known it was if it was. Easy for me to believe it was not however.