I'm in the bay area and dinner for two is absolutely nowhere close to $200 unless you are going somewhere fancy or ordering many drinks. Looking at my transaction history, it's closer to about $40 per person.
1. What could a nation state with $1b to spare achieve if they paid marginalised people $10k a piece to carry out '''random acts'''?
2. Do any nations have the means, motive and opportunity to do this?
The answers isn't necessary yes or no, but more of a percentage chance. That percentage chance needs to be baked into systems as insurance and mitigation. However, the West seems to see this risk as free wealth to be extracted rather than a real threat.
It seems melodramatic right until Russia blows up your bank's data center, and their digital payment system goes down for days or weeks just as you're out buying groceries.
The bun to rust rewrite broke tls authentication and failed open... that alone puts it in the "massive failure" category.
If a breaking bug of that magnitude does not register to you as "huge failure" then you and I have such different views on software quality that theres no possibility of a conversation.
(a) That's mostly irrelevant to my point. This project has major issues with an LLM signature in a safety-critical context. If we assume that the bun rust rewrite went off without a hitch and that doing so is repeatable then it's worth trying to understand what the difference was.
(b) I'm not sure those assumptions hold. Bug reports spiked 2-3x when the rust version was introduced. HMR broke. There were utf-16 parsing panics. The result was slower out of the box and needed a lot of hand-tuning. There were FFI regressions. The rust rewrite had its own concurrency bugs despite rust's "fearless concurrency." In a JS runtime where the rest of the ecosystem is already usually broken, especially since the bugs seemingly weren't safety-related, maybe that's fine, but it wasn't exactly a "no major issues" rewrite.
Note that this is a minority position, most of the world does not live in the West and does not share your view on Mao and Che having a "strongly negative" contribution.
But the very fact that you go to "chatgpt.com" and write to them; "Dear Diary, today I thought.."; there is no reason they would not receive and process your data, unless explicitly promising not to (which also requires us to trust them).
The fundamental rule in this case is that if we offload our data to a cloud provider we can assume they read it, if they can, unless they promised very clearly they will not.
Every single internet connect piece of software there is probably collects telemetry at this point. Why would this be any different? You know google logs your search data as well right? Not just the companies scan it but law enforcement too.
