It would be great to have a way to accurately identify AI-generated images, but is this even possible? It seems like a requirement like this would essentially outlaw the industry.
No. What's possible are services to verify the authenticity of original-generated content through things like trusted content creators that wouldn't want to risk losing some kind of certification that their works or things they display aren't AI generated.
Probably because not everybody is feeing this productivity boost. AI made me a bit more productive, yes, but not by that much. Seeing you call it a "new power" is not relatable, so it may reinforce ideas that it is a bubble.
I think these can both be true. If AI makes people be 3% more productive overall, cumulatively that's a huge improvement, but on an individual level it may feel undeserving of hype.
> Seeing you call it a "new power" is not relatable, so it may reinforce ideas that it is a bubble.
Whereas what it could be reinforcing instead is that some people are better at "using AI" than others.
When I was young, I always saw how my parents never really "got" new technology that I was using all the time, like the internet. Many young people think about it and are sure it won't happen to them. I'm sure many on this technophile site think so.
And then a new technology like AI comes along, some people find ways to be incredibly productive with it, but a very widespread sentiment is that they're... lying? Mistaken? Not very good at their job so it helps them more? The number of excuses people have for "keep this new technology that I don't know how to use away for me" is pretty crazy.
(And I say this as someone who is probably not on the "cutting edge" of AI usage, compared to others I see.)
They can disrupt Telegram operations by financial sanctions, which is more efficient. Russia technically could do it too - Russian audience is not small, but they probably benefit from it a lot.
- Closing topics too aggressively. Very often in favour of topics that are too old, no longer relevant, or don't fully address the question.
- Ignoring the constraints of the asker. For example, asking how do I do X with Y framework, and having someone telling you to switch to B framework instead. Even worse when it's a mod hellbent on shutting you down for not being able to change your constraints.
Reddit, in all its chaos, seems to be faring better at being a support community than SO.
I think they don't support cross-device syncing or automatic backups of E2EE chats, so it's about minimising friction by default. Telegrams main focus is UX, unlike Signal which prioritizes security at the expense of UX.
There's nothing in Telegram that couldn't be implemented with security in mind. They just lack the expertise in designing cryptographic protocols that offer those features, and Durov is too proud to consult experts in helping improve the design. Well, now he gets to enjoy French hospitality.
I'm genuinely curious to what would happen with Signal if the same bad actors moved to their platform. Would France also be arresting its creators for not properly moderating and giving backdoors?
Signal doesn’t have public groups/channels. Moderation obligations only apply to public dissemination. If I send an email to a private mailing list, the involved email providers have no obligation to moderate its contents.
Signal always sounded like they have better lawyers and are not as antagonistic. Police work is not only about encryption. But a lot of it involves metadata. And you know, just booting bad actors from the platform.
They also don't have public groups with questionable material, as far as I know
This would imply that just E2EEing everything would give you a free pass not to moderate anything, which seems very naive. I doubt the judges would care about their self-imposed technological limitations.
If I sell shovels, it's not a self-imposed techical limitation that I don't have a way to detect and prevent anyone from doing something illegal with a shovel. Even after the technological means exist to include an intetnet connected spy device in every shovel.
Secure message passing is no different. The "shovel", the thing one might sell, is just the application of some math which does something and not any of the infinite other things.
It's not a shovel he's selling. It's aching to hosting a gallery portraying disgusting crimes done to actual children. Digital or ink, Durov can't just go behind freedom of speech in this matter.
This isn't about Durov or Telegram, it's about "E2EEing everything would give you a free pass not to moderate anything, which seems very naive"
An e2e communication system is just a shovel, or a car, or a saw, or any other tool that does a specific thing for which there is any valid need, which there absolutely is. Thinking that there is any logically valid way around that is what is very naive.
I agree with you, but also sympathize with the technical issues of moderating encrypted information. Thinking a bit about it, there would need to be a global man in the middle or a requirement for all applications to decrypt/re-encrypt centrally for moderation.
There's a difference between breaking the encryption of a single target after a warrant or handing over previous data which would need some kind of backdoor in the encryption.
IntelliJ is also supported. If you want to use something else, like VIM, then you need to ssh into the remote devbox machine. They have support for custom dotfiles, so you can set up your cool VIM environment for all your remote devboxes.
If you don't want remote devboxes, the regular devboxes still work. You just need to deal with the additional pain for syncing the files.
> took almost 15minutes to correctly switch branches on intel machines
This can probably be fixed with trivial tuning. Just configuring Git to fetch only your branches would speed up the branch switching significantly.
> build and test are soul sucking experiences
Why? It doesn't have to be. If you are going to build the entire monorepo, then yes, but this should only happen when you are running CI, and even then you can break down the builds into smaller components.
> the whole MR becomes a nightmare to correctly review
Not if you set up code ownership properly. You also need to think what happens in case of emergencies, so having a selected list of "super users" and users with permissions to bypass reviews is important.
It sounds like this company wanted a monorepo, but nobody invested any money or time to actually think about developer productivity. When this happens, yes, of course it won't be good, because no project succeeds like this. The nice thing about a monorepo is that instead of 1,000 repos with tooling all over the place and no specialist to take care of them, you can have one repo with really good tooling and a team dedicated to just keep it running smoothly. But if nobody is actually taking care of the monorepo, it will rot just like any other codebase.
