Very few people would even have the knowledge of who, how, or where to "sell" such vulnerabilities. Going through a public bounty program is pretty much always preferable.
Don't worry, as more and more people get put of of work by AI the number of people willing to be felons will increase. Hell, they might even become president.
The recent South Korean hacker reportedly wasn't a hacker at all, just asked Claude to handle it.
I'm not that kind of hacker, but I guarantee I could be, complete with an abliterated model on my local rig, in a few minutes. Claude would happily set it all up for me, too.
In reality, I suppose I'm about to keep my rig busy staying ahead of the hackers.
> Steam can only exist if indie developers feel confident they can publish there.
Why though?
Imagine, there will be an AI agent, which will produce new game everyday and Steam users will like it and keep buying. Steam can only exist if customers keep buying and are not annoyed by games.
Valve takes a 30% cut of all sales through their platform which is responsible for the majority of their revenue. This is dependent on it being a mutually beneficial relationship for developers and a near monopoly on PC customers eyeballs.
Fantastical examples aside Valve is still dependent on developer good will. The balance of that to the near monopoly is a much more valid point about how far Steam can strain that relationship.
Why would they need to take a cut in that fantastical case? They'd just own the agents and take 100%. Not to mention AI at this level of advancement would probably have a decisive lead in many areas leading to mass unemployment which would likely crash the game playing parts of the economy so might be it's own undoing. Valve need customers with disposable income.
Right. Look at Opencode, OpenChamber, Cursor - that's the direction they need to go in, and like yesterday.
The only reason I keep Rubymine open these days is out of habit and I still like using it's git UI but there's less reason to do that every day. It's also a total RAM hog. JetBrains - please, make a lightweight, chat first IDE like everyone else is doing.
do you think, if there was real oppression people could even vote democratically and change their government?
I think you don't know what is oppression then.
(not downplaying how bad Vucic had been to Serbia, but the fact that people replaced him without violence and democratically means something still was in place)
There are certainly different levels of oppression and autocracy.
Here it was designed and made to look like a democracy, but it really required a 70% turnout and 50%+ of people voting against the ruling party for them to accept defeat, especially as there are still large vote thefts going on (to the order of 5-10% of the entire voting population). Basically, anything less than 50% would have put the country in turmoil and violence — again.
As a tidbit, we've got 6.4M registered voters (18+) in a country of 6.5M people. There are a few explanations about how that works, but I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
> especially as there are still large vote thefts going on
Funny, because if you even suggest there *might* be cheating in US elections, especially with the farce that is mail-in voting and groups actively fighting to NOT check IDs, people get really upset.
The reason people get frustrated with the things you brought up are because they don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, and ignores actually impactful voter fraud. It's like complaining about a paper cut while getting mauled by a tiger.
Anything that an individual person does with a ballot is mostly not impactful Barring a handful of generally-not-important local elections, an individual casting one or two or three ballots (or filling out someone else's ballot on their behalf) doesn't actually move the needle.
What does move the needle, are mass voter role purges dome based on demographic. These are done by the government, generally by the party in power in a given location in a bid to stay in power despite their unpopularity.
As a bonus point, when citizens get the voter registration invalidated without being told, then when they go to vote they generate a statistic that gets parroted by internet sycophants talking about evidence that voter fraud is rampant!
That's the excuse often given. If only it were so!
If your voter role purge is >90% living citizens whose only "violation" is living in a zip code unlikely to vote for the party in power, then that's disenfranchisement.
Including a token dead person on your voter roll purge, does not make it a purge of dead people.
We have extremely low voter turnout overall and a truly negligible amount of provable election fraud, even after years of investigations from an administration that has a vested interest in proving the 2020 election was fraudulent.
Why should we enact more barriers to voting to solve a problem that doesn't even exist?
You have it backwards. One cannot assert a problem exists without evidence. Don't ask them to prove a negative, it's literally impossible. You must prove the positive, that voter fraud exists.
If you investigate these things you'll find only 50 people in all of California illegally registered to vote. Just like checking fares on the the train and posting cops on the hov. When trump investigated he found an extremely negligible amount of fraud.
If only there was any evidence at all. Trump could only find 50 people incorrectly registered to vote in all of California. They still check your registration at the polls too.
There is tons of evidence! When Texas does its biannual purge of voter registrations from blue zip codes, all the people who silently had their right to vote revoked generate statistics when they try to cast a ballot.
Kinda like how you can point to an essentially arbitrarily large quantity of illegal immigrants if you first manufacture them by revoking their ability to be here legally, without informing them.
> do you think, if there was real oppression people could even vote democratically and change their government?
Sorry, they get no bonus point for accepting the elections’ results. It’s the bare minimum if they want to pretend to be in a democracy. It does not make them any less oppressive. See also Orban and the PiS.
Now they have some time in the opposition to build something credible to get back into power if they really want it.
Definitely. As someone who's been living in Serbia for quite some time, I'd say Vučić's regime has been relatively mild. I haven't personally heard of people being jailed, killed, or even forced out of the country for political reasons. Turkey is much more repressive, while Russia, Belarus, and North Korea are in a completely different league.
Bad take. These kind of hybrid regimes or "electoral autocracies" are kind of the flavor du jour of modern attempts towards authoritarian governments. You take control democratically, and then build a system where you control as much of the apparatus of democracy as possible: you change rules or laws to ensure opposition parties cannot gain an advantage in elections; you take control of or ally with the owners of media institutions to push your agenda; you concentrate powers under offices that are easy to control, such as an executive or judicial body. When these regimes topple, as with Orban earlier this year and Vucic now, it is because the autocrats overestimated their control. Orban didn't think it was possible for the usually fractious opposition to get the votes to defeat him, but Magyar managed it. Pressure from outside helps, too; when Orban took power, he did so as a center-right figure aligned with the largest political block in the EU (and got support from many of his counterparts, especially Merkel). By the time he lost power, much of Europe had distanced itself from Hungary and that pressure was being felt internally.
I think the important takeaway here is not that "a lack of violence means that there wasn't real oppression," but rather that modern autocrats are trying to execute a playbook whereby they retain the appearance of democracy to legitimize their rule as a mandate from the people while stacking the deck as much in their favor as possible. Indeed, trying to violently retain power kind of defeats the purpose of the charade; by relinquishing control, the autocrats can treat defeat as a temporary setback, not a permanent loss. Expect this playbook to evolve as more hybrid regimes fall out of favor.
Indeed, the democracy -> dictatorship pathway is well documented by now. The reverse is a lot harder, though it is good to see that when the people show they are not going to be cowed that there is a way back out. It takes a lot of bravery though and the people of Serbia are to be commended for what they have done here. Vucic is already laying the ground for discrediting them so the fight isn't over yet (watch is 'concession speech' to see how).
What is the point of this "no true Scotsman" comment, exactly? To defend Vucic? Or to say that what the people managed to do wasn't very hard because they managed to do it?
Ronald Reagan in 1987, while speaking to the Bicentennial of the Constitution Essay Competition winners, discussed reading the constitutions of other nations like the Soviet Union and noting their stated guarantees of freedom, emphasizing that the true difference lies in the concept of "We the People".
I always took this as warning that "We the People", can also be the cause of why those freedoms are taken. Cue the US electing convicted rapists and Brazil almost electing an US agent...
The top quality frontier models are used to compress / improve the earlier, lesser models, to make them more efficient. So that pushes costs way down on previous models.
Opus 5.5 + Claude Code (or probably any agent harness; I don't think they make that much difference). I wouldn't say software engineering is done quite yet but yeah it's definitely never going to be the same.
Unfunnily ironically, Kalshi is one of, if not _the_ worst because it's not limited to one type of betting. It also seems to have lobbying power behind it that has shielded it from the kind of (laughably minimal) regulation that sports betting companies have to, because their lobbyists use weasel words like 'markets' in order to make it sound sophisticated rather than what it actually is: entirely degenerate.
Even worse because rigging professional sports is illegal, but similar manipulation in any other betting category is perfectly fine. Kalshi and co. are being used pretty openly by insiders. Trump's own family are major stakeholders and advisors of both Kalshi and Polymarket.
How is investing not a form of betting in and of itself? At this point, getting out of bed in the morning is a form of gambling. Driving your car or even just getting in a car is gambling. Everything can be given odds, and once you tell someone the odds, it's gambling.
Reductionism and semantics playing is quite tiresome, if you need to redefine what something means just to have a semblance of an argument you do need to spend a lot more time on the philosophy of it to be convincing rather than simply reducing it to meaninglessness...
I would laugh harder, except we hear arguments exactly like this posted regularly to HN as someone's seriously held belief. It's hard to tell satire anymore.
I wonder why they don't allow betting if the Kalshi offices are going to be fire bombed? It seems like they are missing out on important wisdom of the crowd information!
A not-insignificant portion of HN has full blown AI psychosis. These are the devs churning out Windows 11 and all of the inexplicably broken functionality that has started plaguing software we used to consider reliable in the past year.
reply