You can also tell Claude to setup scheduled tasks.
This is very helpful when you want Claude to do something specific, like analyze the next phase. Review past performance etc. I have found this to be a little better than Goal. However, cron tasks only continue for 7 days.
> Not to mention the many inconveniences this would bring about.
This is what reinforces the problem.
When we choose conveniences, we reinforce them. This makes it harder to get away from the things that brings us that convenience.
Conveniences to be able to get a hold of anyone in seconds rather than waiting. Believe it or not, there was a time when we were just, not available. It was OK.
Did that mean that things were a little more challenging? Of course, road trips or going anywhere new meant more upfront planning. Not knowing where your children were brought anxiety which meant rules. However, it was all manageable. By ALWAYS choosing conveniences, we shut the door on alternative options which in turn make it harder to deal with inconveniences.
The other side of this coin is that not everything about the past was better.
I’m struggling to see how having anxiety about losing your children is better. I’m struggling to understand how knowing where they are would lead to having fewer rules.
I struggle to figure out how my friends being more available to text is a negative. What was character-building about calling them on a landline or losing contact with them entirely as an alternative?
I got chicken pox as a kid, that doesn’t mean my kids should get it.
I’ve had arguments like this with my parents about urbanism. When they grew up, the city was dirty, crime-ridden, etc. They also grew up during a time when the automobile was like the tech industry of their day. It was an innovation that changed their lives for the better in their opinion and lived experience. Their house got bigger, their car got bettter and lasted longer and their neighborhood got cleaner and safer, in their eyes.
My parents feel like trying to use the car less and switching to public transit or cycling more is like denying progress. What was the point of all that innovation and progress if we are “going backwards” in their eyes?
The end result of these discussions isn’t that I don’t believe in urbanism anymore, but I’m now more accepting of their point of view on the subject. I see their viewpoint as more valid than I used to. There’s nothing horribly wrong about their way of life even though I don’t necessarily want to adopt many aspects of it.
I am not saying that those things have no value. The opposite is definitely true. However, you are accepting a lot of baggage by reinforcing the systems that bring those conveniences. Now, you MUST have a cellphone or you are a Luddite. You MUST have a cellphone or you can't read a menu at a restaurant, unlock the door to your hotel room or access your bank funds.
You now have lost digital sovereignty to large corporations because you need to be able to get a hold of your kids within seconds.
All conveniences come with costs that you and society must bare.
Last two sentences of your first paragraph are definitely not the sort of thing I was trying to say is okay.
I also don’t think some of the conveniences I talked about have much of a cost. My kids having a cell phone with basic phone and texting capability isn’t a digital sovereignty issue.
And I’m not sure if digital sovereignty matters if the alternative is digital abstinence.
That’s like saying “When you buy a Toyota Camry your life is beholden to Toyota, you should just walk to your destination.” The trade-off isn’t really even, is it?
Car dependency is an excellent parallel. People buy cars on the promise that they should expect freedom of movement, but then they arrange their lives so they can only go where roads have been paved, and arrive where buildings have been demolished for parking lots. They become financially dependent on oil extraction in the Middle East. They become incapable of getting anywhere alone when they lose the ability to drive, due to ailments or age.
So why do we do it? Because we can't imagine living without the convenience of our phones.
And similar to a phone, I don’t usually think that the answer is to just not own one at all.
I’m all for reducing trips and being more mindful about car dependency but I’m not personally going to sell my car because I can afford it and it makes my life better.
Are you imagining a modern society that developed without cars as being more of a burden to live in, or are you imagining the current society, developed with cars, as being more of a burden to live in when just getting rid of cars? Because yeah, getting rid of a car is going to make most people's lives harder. That's kind of what makes it a dependency.
When cars became popular, a lot of urban areas were developed under the assumption that all destinations would be reached by car from that point in time onward. There was no need to consider the idea that someone might not be able to or want to reach a destination without one.
I’m fine with cars being a beneficial convenience, an attainable luxury for the masses, but I think that any area with sufficient population (which isn’t very much) can support the idea of families being able to reach a significant percent of their daily destinations without a vehicle, and perhaps even preferring to do so.
It also saves a tremendous amount of resources and cost of living to reduce car trips per week per person by even a small amount.
When smartphones became popular, a lot of social functions developed under the assumption that all participants would have a smartphone, and have it with them at all times, connected. There has been no need to consider the idea that someone might want to participate without one.
You're arguing that car dependency is fine (for you). I'm arguing that car dependency is a good analogy for phone dependency.
> My kids having a cell phone with basic phone and texting capability isn’t a digital sovereignty issue.
Of course it is, the first version of Twitter was a texting platform. You can't draw some line and say that this is the end of the baggage that comes with this convenience because that is not how the world works. The inevitability of social pressure means "keeping up with the Joneses" so your kids need to communicate with others, not just you.
Just because it doesn't come in the form of an app doesn't mean it is safe or come without risks.
Telecoms (calling and texting) are literally regulated utilities. I’m confused at where the baggage is.
I’m failing to see how Twitter is relevant.
I’m failing to see the “keeping up with the Joneses” factor here. I am talking about basic cellular service not a $1,000 iPhone loaded up with brain rot apps.
Regulated in what way that is relevant to the concern about digital sovereignty or privacy?
> I’m failing to see how Twitter is relevant.
My point is that voice and text ONLY (dumb phones) isn't some significant change from apps in terms of the concerns I am raising.
> I am talking about basic cellular service
If you and your children can maintain that situation, great, it doesn't change that society has NOT accepted that. That society sees you as unusual for not conforming. Which is the entire point of my argument. The pressure to conform doesn't yield because of a single person's choice and many use the arguments you are using to maintain their children's access to a $1,000 iPhone loaded up with brain rot apps.
I gotta be honest I don’t care enough about this subject enough to keep going lol
I am really just not in any pickle and don’t lose sleep over any of this. That was my original entire point is that sometimes it’s acceptable to allow things to be convenient.
I'm not a parent and a bit autistic so excuse the unemotional reply but surely there are other ways not to have anxiety about your children surely?:
Teach independence/self-defence/street smarts, encourage weight lifting for older kids, therapy/meditation for yourself (some anxiety is natural of course!), move to a safer city, have more children (easier to pair them up on adventures, plus less subconscious physiological fear of losing your one and only child), distract yourself and stay busy, go with them to places the first few times to assure yourself then take off your training wheels. Or just say no to certain things.
It doesn't seem to me a special case of anxiety that can only be addressed by spy apps and knowing you might be able to instantly contact them.
Knowing where they are isn’t necessarily “installing spy apps,” it can just mean being able to call them or text them.
“Move to a safer city” is a lot more expensive than a phone plan. A lot of people don’t have that luxury.
I agree that all the things you talk about are life positives but the way I see it, giving a kid who is old and mature enough to use one a cell phone is like a $15/month cost proposition for an outsized benefit of being able to contact them.
lol, have my kids carry a phone or have more kids so the can be paired up.
That’s a wild thing to say out loud. And absolutely doesn’t solve the problem. Kids need to have their own friends and own social circles if you want to teach independence.
The configuration change was never a full protection from this vulnerability because the problem is with how PHP processed the request well before the configuration or your PHP code was executed.
> because the problem is with how PHP processed the request well before the configuration or your PHP code was executed.
That's what I wrote? You can't do anything once PHP executed. It could still be worse, because you can still prevent PHP from running, because there is still the webserver before. If it were in the webserver itself, you couldn't do anything, short of stopping the server from running.
> The configuration change was never a full protection from this vulnerability
It is, if the configuration change prevents PHP from running. That's how you could say it is overblown. You are not vulnerable if you don't run PHP.
You kept talking about some configuration change that makes things "overblown", without making it clear you meant "turn off PHP". So yes that's misinformation.
It's not overblown if the only non-patch fix is "turn off PHP".
And that's assuming you actually meant "turn off PHP" the entire time? Your earlier phrasing suggests you have something that leaves PHP running in mind, but if that's entirely hypothetical then again we're back to misinformation. (And when you argue it's Turing complete, that only means that a patch must be possible. It doesn't mean there's a config fix.)
My first statement was "Not having made the claim", to indicate that I do not necessarily think that. My second was "took down my website too" to indicate, based on what understanding I did and plan to act on.
> And when you argue it's Turing complete, that only means that a patch must be possible. It doesn't mean there's a config fix
The config could be, run a simulation on the input data to decide whether it would allow for RCE and then decide whether to run PHP or not. I sure hope nobody is actually doing that, but it is sure possible.
> And that's assuming you actually meant "turn off PHP" the entire time?
I did mean "only execute PHP, when you know the input doesn't trigger it", the policy of never invoking PHP at all, does satisfy that.
> The config could be, run a simulation on the input data to decide whether it would allow for RCE and then decide whether to run PHP or not. I sure hope nobody is actually doing that, but it is sure possible.
That is not a config. That's a whole new program.
> My first statement was "Not having made the claim", to indicate that I do not necessarily think that. My second was "took down my website too" to indicate, based on what understanding I did and plan to act on.
But with everything else you still made it sound like you were supporting it.
> I did mean "only execute PHP, when you know the input doesn't trigger it", the policy of never invoking PHP at all, does satisfy that.
It satisfies it, but in a way that doesn't make the exploit overblown.
It's obvious that you can avoid a PHP exploit by turning off PHP. That's not nearly enough to make the worries overblown.
"It could be even worse" is the only conclusion we can draw from it being in php and not the web server. And that conclusion is basically meaningless.
That's the distinction between being able to do something or not if you do not have control over the webserver, as is likely the case for a lot or PHP websites, so I wouldn't say it's meaningless.
Fun fact a "jay" in jaywalker was a derogatory term at the time. Meaning
"a rube" or "country bumkin". It was initially thrown at drivers, but car companies successfully flipped the insult.
> Jesus, doesn't anybody just want to name their MP3 correctly and then use file management...
As an early fan of Winamp, what I have found is that most people do not want the Winamp experience these day. The problem with Winamp is it came with no music, only a JJ McKay promo.
There are many players that seek to emulate the Winamp experience but much of the audience for something like that have moved on to Spotify. Today's audiences want a fully curated experience from their "Player", which Winamp was never designed to do.
For the price of less than one CD a month, I can have access to more music that I want to listen to. And I don't have to lug around all that music on three different devices.
Nah, their "curation" is when they play the version they want to play instead of the one you wanted.
Take the somewhat-recently popular Kpop Demon Hunters on my "cloud storage" music player of choice. There was originally just a good, cleanly mixed version.
Then up pops a Netflix-version that had wrecked mixing. And when my kid types in the name it'll give them the "official" version - the fucked one.
And don't get me started on all the other versions of their songs that then pop up of people trying to ride the popularity wave to get some plays.
I have to curate what the "cloud storage" player gives me so hard I'm thinking of dropping it...
Same, it is kind of strange. Back in 2005 I was one of the first to carry the full internet on my phone and now I am leading the charge to avoid having to carry the internet in my pocket.
If your product or service requires a phone, I just don't do business with you. I know I sound archaic recommending this, but we (as a society) need to push back on your phone being the key to your life.
My phone is no more special than my laptop, however this requires an incredible amount of inconvenience for most people along with the constant social pressure to carry a cellphone. As you can imagine, I do not have many friends these days.
I never understood why people would bring their phones in public. From getting stolen, lost or broken to the tracking and border accessing your social media accounts, personal photos and bank information it makes very little sense when no one actual calls anyone anymore.
> It sounds like you solved the problem of losing access to society by losing access to society.
Perhaps, but frankly I have been more on the lookout for people like me. Natural filter for compatibility?
> Have you considered having backups instead? Carry a physical credit card, make sure you have a backup phone uncharged at home ready for a swap?
I mean, I carry a wallet. Most vendors and society still take cash or card. Where the real friction comes in is staying connected to a community. Everyone wants to keep social connections virtual for some odd reason. As a remote worker I definitely get the virtues of remote interaction, but sometimes meeting people in person has benefits. It does not have to be all-or-nothing and it feels like we are moving to an all-or-nothing digital way of life.
This train isn't stopping.
What trips up a lot of SEs where I work is their techniques. Everyone who follows our process delivers faster and with higher reliability so far.
reply