> Did leaving the EU actually fixed anything for the UK?
Yes - it fixed the attribution of our problems. Politicians, leaders, judges, etc will find it harder to "blame the EU" - when then blame is squarely on them.
The OP notes that they had to use special phrasing to get their exfil to work, so clearly GitHub was aware of the issue and made an attempt to prevent it.
It seems like the proper fix is for GitHub not to allow their agentic workflow to execute in a public repo context if it also has private repo access. Or, to use your phrasing, for GitHub to flag and disallow this easily-detectable and dangerous type of misconfiguration.
This “detectable and dangerous type of misconfiguration” is used by many developed daily and breaking it would break important workflows.
It’s like saying that an OS should enforce that home directories can only have 0600 permissions. Yes, it prevents accidentally configuring world readable on files, but there are legit reasons for wanting to share a file from your home dir.
Why is that an issue though when it is the lesser of two evils? At the very minimum, regardless of “misconfiguration” or not, not having any type of warnings to advise against this behavior is quite bad.
Misconfiguration isn’t really the best word choice, either, because it’s definitely a both-sides problem.
I have instance for couple of years. No issues for now. Never had a feeling it's going to fall apart. I host it via docker image, pull new version from time to time and that's mostly it.
Only two problems I can think of: it's bit slow - even our company instance which has reasonable resources could be bit faster. Also they could use a better UI designer.
None of it is major problem for me. As self-hosted Dropbox/calendar/cospend it's perfectly fine.
Honestly - shouldn't one assume that train already departed when they decided to work for company that is basically data mining operation with no ethics?
I don't ever say "Antigravity", because it's not worth getting invested into tool, that will be dead in two years, when "Google Harness" or whatever they will call it, will replace it
I was part of CEO recruitment process (sadly not FAANG-like, so maybe it wasn't "so much"-level yet).
Amount of people who are both seriously willing to take the job(considering pressure) and have necessary skills is not very high. Tbh same is truth for any management job - a lot of competent people prefer calmer life.
Obviously for the very top compensation is bonkers and there's fair share of frauds that ended in the position for various reasons, but if you want someone reasonable pool shrinks quite fast.
I may not be _that_ competent, but the calmer life is worth sacrificing a fair few dollars for. For each job I've changed, I've gone to a lower paying position, such that I'm currently still on $10k (around 8%) less than I was earning... 5 years ago, two jobs ago, which was probably about the same as the job I left 6 years before that. All previous jobs were worth leaving.
Parenting, maintaining a long-term relationship, playing (two, kinda) sport(s), home-labbing, keeping up with the state of the world, all take time and I enjoy all of them. It allows me to enjoy the work I do too, to not resent it for all the other things I could have been doing.
I'm in a position of privilege to say any of this, but I've also been careful and relatively well planned with my finances in order to reach this point. I'd be kinda f'd if I was out of work for longer than 6 months, but I'm sure I could re-plan and re-organise priorities and spending to minimise the damage (but we'd definitely be f'd if we both were out of work...).
Have you considered being paid $20 million for one year, and then staying home with family for the next ten years? Even after taxes, you'd still have much more of both time and money than a career in, say, air traffic control.
Following Boeing example you given below - it's not like the guy was given offer to become a CEO out of the blue & had to endure year to be set for life.
He was slowly climbing through the ranks of huge organization over the span of almost 30 years. Given later revelations I certainly wouldn't call it easy or calm - likely even morally challenging sometimes (not admiring anything here - simply any position of power comes with this kind of issues - no matter you're playing for good or bad guys).
Taste of Boeing shareholders for execs is whole other discussion, but I really don't think there's huge crowd of people both willing and capable of filling those shoes.
Maybe, if that was even offered as an option. I doubt I'm that competent, however, and just the fact I have that doubt probably excludes me from the possibility.
Hell, I would gladly take any job where "failing upward" was the rule. Do it for a few years, fail, and then move on to the next higher level opportunity.
Most job levels fail downwards, but once you get to a certain level, for whatever reason, nearly everyone fails upwards. I think "director at a FAANG" and "VP at a medium sized company" are about the level where roles start defaulting to failing upward.
>Amount of people who are both seriously willing to take the job(considering pressure) and have necessary skills is not very high.
I don't believe that. The average CEO is going to have perhaps ten direct reports. I'm willing to bet nearly every one of those is capable and up for the job.
In my past I got high enough to barely touch the ceiling of a multi-billion dollar public company. I routinely had 1:1s with directs to the CEO. Not one of them would be willing or able to take that CEO job.
Just the amount of public facing interviews on CNBC would disqualify half and the other half wouldn't want to do it. They were already being paid very well.
Honestly it's more or less usable already - maybe matter of display size compared to other comment. One thing that is killing the fun is that it's impossible to delete something. That or even undo button would make it enough to have fun with it.
Those are examples of software people choose to use voluntarily. The context here is government removing that choice and forcing you to use something under the conditions they set.
I'm sure there are parental controls for many that go too far or not far enough. A reminder of why the government trying to solve parenting problems is likely to fail like most of their other attempts, such as failing to stop people from growing plants.
The market decides. Google and Apple both compete and there are other disruptors. I worked on an education product in 2018 and it would contact third-party services like Khan Academy or Duolingo. And if a child had not earned enough measurable results, they would be unable to access non-educational content.
Market is two companies who do not compete in this area at all, because Google literally earns on monetizing attention and Apple since Jobs era uses children as part of the strategy to lock you down in their ecosystem (see emails they had to make available to the court). There are zero serious disruptors and chance they'll appear gets smaller, because of push for device attestation being required for more and more apps.
Making children do an hour of Duolingo before they access open internet is hardly the goal. It's more about limiting their exposure to brain rot content. Existing tool would require you to block it domain-by-domain.
Honestly I can't see less invasive solution for that tool to work than page broadcasting age-rating with http response and device being aware it's owned by minor and refusing to display it.
