I don't think the limit changed per se, but Opus 5.5 consumes a lot less usage than 5.0 did, so it goes further.

> PDFs are executables, that's why it's hard. They support running code

I don't think Apple's PDF renderer supports e.g. running JS, you'd need real Acrobat for that. Or are you talking about something else?

> they support decoding images which themselves have their own custom compressors that are also basically code themselves.

But this is fundamentally true for anything that displays images, right? Or are the PDF formats particularly bad for some reason?

Yeah a lot of those fancy PDF features are Adobe-only. It's not that other apps can't support those features, it's that no one in their right mind wants to spend endless amounts of money and time trying to sandbox it.

Most people have some understanding that shady websites can give you malware, a drive-by exploit is pretty rare but it's good that most people think just visiting a site could infect your computer. But a PDF is just a document, right? Just thinking that a PDF is just words on a page is exactly why it's such an insidious threat. Or they'll get a PDF as an email attachment, see that it's not an exe or something weird, and open it because they think a document is safe.

I think it's more the image formats PDF supports? I could be wrong, but there was that forcedentry vulnerability (which was insanely cool, even if really bad)

Is this not your work? If you didn't make it, you should email hn@ycombinator.com so the mods can remove Show HN from the title. This is a great submission, just not a Show HN.

Ok, we've un-show-hn'd it and will leave the submission otherwise intact.

One thing that occurs to me is this project is a way to get a fully jailbroken iOS. You can tweak the kernel and go nuts. Can't do that on an iPhone.

Apple's own design guidelines originally said not to do the thing they did (and which they are now once again saying not to do).

Couldn't Apple have just, like, talked to the people who originally wrote the guidelines? Why do they need to re-invent the wheel? Will Apple forget again in another 15 years and need to re-run the experiment, taking us all along as test subjects?

Why do you assume they didn't talk to those people?

Decisions should be revisited when it makes sense to do so.

And given the rapidity with which that decision was thrown in the trash and abandoned, we have no reason to assume it made sense to revisit it in the first place.

Yet Apple "designers" have been following the rest of the industry for more than a decade now and didn't revisit any decisions, but just threw them in the trash not understanding them

I can see how peas might solve the first and last problems on your list, but wouldn't the others remain?

That is fair yea. I reckon that's why many parks put up signs to not feed the birds.

I guess if you are serious about it you can spread it out and drop your peas in different areas and/or don't drop a huge amount at once.

> There is no form of surveillance that does more good than harm in the long run.

...how far do you take this maxim? Should we have any police on the street to enforce speed limits, since they're surveilling the speed of drivers?

Often, there are many solutions to a problem, with different externalities and implementation requirements. Speed limit enforcement for sure has some benefits, but also some downsides. Any absolute has edge cases that don't work, but I don't in fact think creating the large networks of people empowered to surveil citizens to enforce speed limits is the only viable means of reducing traffic deaths, a goal which is often better served by creating more viable transportation alternatives to cars. I don't think carceral approaches to problems are always wrong, but they are often an attempt to individuate a problem that's better addressed on the level of infrastructure

Yup, trees, narrower streets, round abouts, speed bumps, (no one would agree to it) one way road spikes... All sorts of proven tricks.

We don't imprison people for speeding per se in the UK.

GP probably meant mass surveillance. I don't think anyone's arguing that a cop with a radar gun watching one piece of road is harmful. It's harmful when it scales to hundreds of data points across different areas, is automated, and has almost no oversight or accountability baked into the system.

Then GP should have said mass surveillance. In this era of all-or-nothing swing-for-the-bleachers with-me-or-against-me hot takes, it matters.

I thought the "automated" part was a clear implication of the statement personally.

What "automated" part, I see no "automated" in the OP, but perhaps it was meant. So far we have:

1. "opposed to the fundamental notion that human beings are capable of cooperation and altruism at scale" - a complicated statement, I think it means that keeping people under control stops them from being naturally good.

2. The scale, or as another comment said, "It's harmful when it scales to hundreds of data points across different areas", but why?

3. That comment continues "is automated, and has almost no oversight or accountability baked into the system." It's not clear why anything would be better when inefficient, but here we have an appeal to common sense and some sort of appeals process.

This is rather messy. I get the impression of an argument for case-by-case human decisions.

It reminds me of the data gathering done by businesses, which doesn't even technically harm me or lead to decisions about me personally, but still pisses me off. I'm happy for a store manager to contemplatively watch me shopping while incubating business decisions, but I don't want to be distilled into statistics, it's just offensive - I suppose because it's impersonal. "How do these humans behave mechanically?" is the question implied by the data-gathering.

Seems like a good time to get a third Claude to hear the cases of the first two Claudes and break the tie.

Make it five so that you can write a blog article about how your use of AI is extra-secure and top game.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that AI truly is able to automate away basically all software development. Any oversight currently performed by humans can itself be done by agents.

...don't you think the ability to create virtually unlimited amounts of software, at virtually no cost, is going to lead to major advances in robotics? I realize there's a lot of very hard problems involved in e.g. robotic hands (to take one example), but once software development is practically free, I'd expect a lot of seemingly-impossible problems to get resolved by the sheer quantity of what we can create and experiment with.

Yeah, but manufacturing things takes materials and time; I'd give it at least a few years before we manage to squeeze people out of that too.

The robots are going to be controlled by the same billionaires that make employees pee in bottles or fire hundreds on a whim over tweets.

Our labor power is going to be fully eroded and the robots will not be serving us.

That's not really the point I'm trying to make.

In the future, do bathrooms need to be cleaned? If yes, is it cheaper for that to be done by a person or by a robot?

Obviously, it is in the interest of the robot manufacturers to make the robot just a tiny bit cheaper than the person, so you'll buy the robot and the company makes the maximum amount of profit.

Now, if society breaks down and there's no one to consider buying the robot—well, that's not good for anybody, which is why I suspect society will find some way of working this out even if it's not ideal. But whatever, I don't particularly want to argue this point.

What I do want to argue is that there probably isn't a universe in which all white collar work goes away but blue collar work is still around.

> I suspect society will find some way of working this out

Not sure what this "society" that works things out is, exactly. Top-down high-modernist plans for how society ought to work are the past; chaotic, twitchy, thrashy responses to disruption by a tiny elite class is where we are now.

Again, this is really not the point I'm trying to make! If your prediction is that we'd end up in some apocalyptic dystopia, I'll concede the possibility.

But there still wouldn't be any jobs cleaning toilets, because the people who still had toilets to clean would have robots to do it.

It's far from the only annoying false positive.

Here's a real world case I've run into a bunch of times. Parents send children to school with Airtags in their backpacks. (The children are young and don't themselves have phones.) Class goes on a field trip. Boom, tons of notifications.