The auditor app itself does not result in any loss of freedom, but the widespread availability of remote attestation mechanisms on end-user devices incentivizes others to use it in a manner that does.
A purely local mechanism that lets the user check the integrity of their system is great. Making it easy for third parties to inspect it is a severe violation of user freedom and privacy.
What? Why would you feel bad about a negative review of something you didn't create?
Either the product is something I was curious about and hadn't decided to spend time and money on yet, in which case a negative review might save me the trouble, or it's something I've already done and formed my own opinion about, in which case I'm probably not reading reviews.
There's some value in that, but Signal's main security proposition is that you don't have to trust the infrastructure. E2EE means even compromised server software can't read message contents.
At the time the LLM generated the compiler, just syntax. The semantics it generated were the subset of C that the C version of the compiler already used.
You could set the goalposts such that it wasn't novel enough to count, but for a short time I had code running in a language that nobody had ever known. Getting it from that point to a language that's ergonomic to use, teaches something about computing, or both is a longer journey, and certainly not one an LLM could take on its own.
An LLM won't come up with an interesting CRUD app on its own either. Parts of that process are pretty mechanical, but we had skeletons and templates before we had LLMs.
> it’s hard to imagine they’ll ever independently develop a compiler for a truly novel programming language
I did exactly that using an LLM. It may not count as independent depending on how strict you are about that, but then LLMs don't do anything independently.
I wrote a small sample program and expected output, then told the LLM to write a compiler for it in C using LLVM. I subsequently told it to extend the language until it could be used for its own compiler, and rewrite the compiler in the new language. It did.
I don't think that contradicts your point about creativity. A compiler is probably a more mechanical task than a CRUD app is. There's a non-negotiable definition of done and correct.
Designing a language is a creative task of course, and I wouldn't expect an LLM to come up with a novel or ergonomic design on its own. In fact subsequent experiments have shown me that LLMs will consistently ignore terrible ergonomics in a language, never seeking opportunities to add abstraction or beauty.
The phones part is a red herring here. Phones work fine for reading text.
Video outcompeting text as a mainstream medium for both information and entertainment is as old as television. Youtube would be a more reliable way to make money than a blog in 2026 even if it was primarily consumed on TVs or PCs.
There's already a restriction that requires going into the settings and flipping a toggle, with a warning. I think that's enough.
To be clear, enough does not mean that will stop every trojan/scam. People send Starbucks gift cards to callers claiming to be from the IRS calling to collect overdue taxes despite the obvious absurdity. Enough means that someone who doesn't know anything about computers but who reads and believes the warning label has sufficient information to know that it's a potentially dangerous decision. Some people will make the dangerous decision anyway, but it's on them at that point.
People keep talking about it that way inside our circles, and if we do that here, we will surely fail to do better with a broader audience.
Last year's example of ICEBlock makes the freedom/tinkering distinction clear to most people. ICEBlock was an iOS-only app for tracking immigration raids in the USA and alerting users when they're nearby. Apple caved to government pressure and banned it. Because iOS users don't have the freedom to install apps from other sources, that's the last word; the app is effectively dead.
I've found most people understand pretty well why that sort of thing is a problem even if it did not affect them.
The only time I've actually seen Android malware in the wild, it was because my mother installed a homescreen flashlight toggle widget from the Play Store that also displayed ads on the lockscreen. That was forbidden under Play Store rules, but there it was. I replaced it with something from F-Droid.
The Play Store still has a problem with shady apps years later. If Google wants to be more like Apple, they should start with better curation in their own store.
When I would fix Windows machines for pocket change, Knoppix was one of the first tools I'd reach for. It made separating janky hardware and janky software much easier.
People keep framing these sorts of debates in terms of tinkering.
It's about ownership, not tinkering. It's about preventing megacorporations from having the last word about how government services can function and how people can interact with them.
The site links a couple studies coming to a different conclusion about crime. Feeling safer doesn't necessarily mean you are safer.
As for pedestrian safety, button-activated lights over crosswalks are one potential alternative to always-on outdoor lighting. It might lead to a considerable safety improvement once people got used to the light being an indication that pedestrians are likely present.
It does link a couple studies to back up that claim. Critiques of those studies or evidence for the opposite would contribute to the conversation; this does not.
I'm seeing a big red flag here for what purports to be a systems programming language: it isn't used for its own compiler. The compiler is written in Rust.
A systems programming language should be able to self-host its compiler. Writing compilers is one of the canonical systems programming tasks. Making that happen may not even be hard in the LLM and LLVM era as it's a fairly mechanical task for an LLM to execute, and you can output textual LLVM IR to bootstrap on any architecture LLVM supports.
One issue I keep seeing with cost comparisons is that they compare API rates while a substantial fraction of users are on subscription plans.
It's more expensive to use GLM 5.2 paying z.ai or Opencode Zen API rates than it is to use Opus on a subscription plan. Both of those providers offer subscriptions priced favorably relative to their API rates, but only in what are effectively trial sizes.
The ability to build reliable software has existed for a long time. Commercial airlines make heavy use of it, and serious failures are vanishingly rare.
The problem is building software to those standards of reliability is expensive and slow. Consumer software never justifies it. Business software rarely does. If you want me to accept liability for the consequences of bugs in code I write, I'm giving you a schedule five times as long and a price twenty times as high.
https://social.goodanser.com/@zak (Mastodon)