Don’t know why you’re downvoted but this venture funding is exactly what makes the scale and centralization of surveillance possible. You can’t build this sort of system out without the debt financing provided by the vc industry.
For example - I don’t have links to substantiate this yet - but I’d bet the same playbook that’s always used was used here as well. Flock cameras were provided to cash strapped police departments at a very low cost - unsustainably low for any other non vc funded company to compete with - in order to juice growth and build the scale/network effect to make the system valuable.
I mean, you've already had 10 months to come up with some name ideas. It's not like it's a huge surprise when it happens. You could even register the names before they're born.
I thought there might have been a need to send an ID to prove that you actually have the name you're registering for so you would need to wait for the birth certificate but from wikipedia it doesn't seem like that's the case.
No requirements at all. My mom had registered my firstlast.com domain some 30 years ago. While caring for my dying dad, she let all her domain registrations expire. I then had to negotiate with a domain squatter to get my domain back.
From the Verisign application [0] for this change:
> 2.1. What effect, if any, will the proposed service have on the life cycle of domain names?
> None. There will not be any effect on the life cycle of domain names.
ehhh, how is that possibly true? This change (deleting all third level names) by definition affects the lifecycle of domain names ... by terminating them!
Many years ago I wrote articles bringing attention to the negative effects of Verisign's SiteFinder [1] - if you don't remember this, it's when Verisign hijacked NXDOMAIN by redirecting any unresolvable domain to a site they owned and controlled.
"Well, it doesn't affect the lifecycle of domain names. The lifecycle is defined in some RFC somewhere, and this change doesn't modify that. Now, these particular domain name instances might be adversely affected, but you didn't ask about that." -- lawyers, probably.
As a lawyer myself who also has rather a bit of a technology background, I do not see how any lawyer could possibly consider that such an argument holds water.
You're closer than you think. Big companies and institutions just change the definition of words they don't like. In this case, they could argue that a domain's lifecycle is registration, renewal (optional), deletion. Deletion is part of the expected lifecycle, so this doesn't change it.
The ambiguity is a feature so they can do whatever they want. We all know it's bullshit, but it gives the parties involved the ability to disenfranchise one group to benefit another while claiming they're following the rules.
Here's an example of someone genuinely making that argument in another hacker news post. I'm having a laugh about how spot on I was.
> Changes to the life-cycles of domains is a question meant to ask if this seeks to modify the life cycle policy, which is a separate type of change from termination of the service as a whole. I.e. this does not seek to change the life cycle policy, it seeks to terminate the service offering completely - making the life cycle policy irrelevant.
Yea like naming Army street to Chavez and all the other hundreds of renamings of American place names over the last couple of decades… like we should be up in arms by now we just can’t contend with so much overwhelming change!
Or reaming stadiums (which get updated on maps) for sponsorships, renaming towns for sponsorships… we have a never ending stream of renamings to be mad at and wave our ineffectual fists at.
But Anthropic themselves are the ones who made the equivalence of "0.00% prompt injection attack success rate == auto-mode is safe"
The tweet literally says: "turns out you can get indirect prompt injection to ~0 on unseen attacks... auto mode is default in claude code as of next week"
Making the assertion, quite clearly in my opinion, that the reason auto mode is default is because he feels the lack of successful prompt injection attacks makes auto mode safe. This blog post proves that you can break auto mode's safety, even if it's not technically through a textbook indirect prompt injection attack.
Hmm yeah that's never really been my read on Auto Mode but I guess it's still worth pushing back on any messaging that seems to imply "Auto Mode is all you need".
I would reject "Auto Mode is safe" as a message but FWIW I am totally on board with "on aggregate, making Auto Mode the default improves the safety of Claude Code compared to the prior status quo". Coz I would say in the vast majority of cases the access classifier is doing a better job than the thing it replaced.
Anyway yeah. Like I said, conclusion is the same: we should be decoupling this from the harness. We ought to be sandboxing agents the same way we sandbox applications. I wish Claude Code would make this path smoother :(
We wouldn’t want someone to work in the US under the guise of a student visa, after all. It’s not like the current richest man in the world didn’t start his journey that way.
If the AI company bought their book, then they didn't give it all away. If the AI company obtained it indirectly like a library or 2nd hand, then the author has already been paid when he first sold it. In either case, he could have refused to be so liberal in sharing it if he didn't want it to be used like that, but he preferred to make some money instead.
If buying one copy of a book entitles the ai company to train on that data and redistribute information derived from it in perpetuity, then why shouldn’t a rival ai company be allowed to train on tokens from say OpenAI and redistribute information derived from the OpenAI model also in perpetuity? The rival ai company paid for the tokens, after all.
What was the intent of the original ai companies (anthropic, OpenAI, etc) when they mass-distilled the entire internet to create their training data set?
One could make arguments for OpenAI and Anthropic. But Google Search displays AI results above the SERP - clearly in competition with them. No premise or excuse there.
For example - I don’t have links to substantiate this yet - but I’d bet the same playbook that’s always used was used here as well. Flock cameras were provided to cash strapped police departments at a very low cost - unsustainably low for any other non vc funded company to compete with - in order to juice growth and build the scale/network effect to make the system valuable.