Even inside of EU, seemingly BYD have reasonable prices, especially compared to their EU competitors. I'm an current Audi owner in Spain, who is currently very close of getting a BYD DM-i Touring, and compared to what I would get from Audi for the same price, BYD still offers a lot more in everything except "nice steering feeling", at least from what I've gathered from my test drives.

(There's also anti-dumping tariffs on electric bikes from China, I wonder if it's the same lobby...)

Isn’t it wise to prefer a nice steering feeling? Your body is, after all, going to be feeling it every time you drive.

The BMW iX1 is disappointing in range, interior luxury and power. It's below an older 6 series (that I'm switching from), and much less powerful than a Model Y AWD. No idea why BMW thinks they can price it like they do. The other option was the BMW i5 Touring but it's more expensive and feels "old" already.

Bandcamp Friday is such a fun day, I always have +5 purchases lined up from the previous month, and usually keep track of the social media of the artists I buy from that day, and many of them post something really wholesome about how much they made on that day :) Such a fun time all around.

As a bar/restaurant owner who sometimes host electronic parties, that sucks and does mess up a lot. But as a dance party attender, that sounds like a good thing, the parties tend to have way too high attendance, and if there is no space for people to actually move around and dance, I don't really know what the point of it even is anymore.

Yeah, in some way that's true. In the house music scene almost every producer also sells vinyls of their best songs, sometimes "collectors editions", and also DJs obviously sometimes pride themselves on only playing vinyl. For the artists I really do enjoy, I tend to buy their songs + with the vinyl, as a way to support them, but I indeed have no way of actually playing them, and haven't had for more than a decade.

So here I sit with 20+ vinyl records, most of them unopened, and no record player. But I don't mind, I just want to give money to the artists that provide me joy.

Probably could have been avoided if Sony kept the Linux version of the Playstation still alive. Imagine what the (console) world would have looked like, if it was still alive. I never got the chance to even try it myself before it was gone, but I'm sure a lot of the homebrew community's energy could have been redirected towards it instead, hitting two flies with one swath.

The causality here is backwards; Sony removed Other OS support precisely because the first jailbreak (a glitching attack) relied on it.

On the other hand, the Ps3 clusters were around since basically the console's launch. Additionally, the console had been selling at a profit, at least in the US, by 2009, before they removed the other os feature.

All this happened 16 years ago. If you're curious about stuff that has happened so recently, you can research it online.

Also, there is no evidence that the PS3 clusters were particularly widespread. The largest single PS3 cluster I know of was the USAF 1760-machine cluster; the second largest was about 200 machines at EPFL. With 87M+ PS3s sold, that's a drop in the ocean. The PS3 just wasn't very good as a general-purpose server, and it also didn't have good interconnect at all (people struggled to even reach 100Mbit/sec on it, so it's also not a very good general HPC server); if you didn't have a problem that mapped really well to Cell, it just wasn't for you. There's no evidence any significant amount of companies bought tens of thousands of PS3s for their datacenters.

So even if Sony _did_ lose money on each sold PS3 used for servers, there simply can't have been a lot of money in all.

A company press release is not necessarily the be-all end-all full story when it comes to justifying something extremely unpopular with their customer base.

It's quite probable I read some sources that were dated or had some more nuance to it that I don't recall off the top of my head because it was 15 years ago. New information doesn't immediately replace old information in the minds of the entire populace - that's not how news consumption works.

I suggest you stop starting out arguments with such hostility and maybe you won't get it in response.

IMHO, removal of this feature should have triggered Sony having to pay back the amount of taxes cheated.

Nobody tried to hack it, everyone assumed it was impossible. But when they removed Linux, then people tried, and it was broken very quickly.

But it was fun.

What is the alternative? Granted you're running a language model and has it connected to editing capabilities, then I very much like it to be disconnected from the rest of my system, seems like a no-brainer.

> It searched the environment for vor-related variables, found VORATIQ_CLI_ROOT pointing to an absolute host path, and read the token through that path instead. The deny rule only covered the workspace-relative path.

What kind of sandbox has the entire host accessible from the guest? I'm not going as far as running codex/claude in a sandbox, but I do run them in podman, and of course I don't mount my entire harddrive to the container when it's running, that would defeat the entire purpose.

Where is the actual session logs? It seems like they're pushing their own solution, yet the actual data for these are missing, and the whole "provoked through red-teaming efforts" makes it a bit unclear of what exactly they put in the system prompts, if they changed them. Adding things like "Do whatever you can to recreate anything missing" might of course trigger the agent to actually try things like forging integrity fields, but not sure that's even bad, you do want it to follow what you say.

The tradeoff is intentional, a lot of people want lightweight sandboxing without Docker/Podman overhead. The downside is what you're pointing out, you have to be more careful. Each bypass in the post led to a policy or implementation change. So, this is no longer an issue.

On prompts: Red-teaming meant setting up scenarios likely to trigger denials (e.g., blocking the npm registry, then asking for a build), not prompt-injecting things like “do whatever it takes.”

[1] https://github.com/anthropic-experimental/sandbox-runtime

Could you share the full sessions or at least the full prompts? Otherwise it's too much "just trust us", especially since you're selling a product and we're supposed to use this as "evidence" for why your product is needed. Personally, I never seen any of the behavior you're talking about, with either codex, claude, qwen-coder, gemini, amp or even my own agent, so while I'm not saying it's fake, it'd be really useful to be able to see the prompts in particular, for a deeper understand if nothing else.

> without Docker/Podman overhead

What agent tooling you use is affected by that tiny performance overhead? Unless you're doing performance testing or something else sensitive, I don't think most people will even notice any difference as the overhead is marginal at worst.

I mean, why wouldn't they? If you ran a party, and one individual seem (from your perspective) to hold opinions that goes against what you and others believe the party is for, wouldn't you also want them to leave your party?

Shouldn't be that hard of a problem really, if we could accept that people change beliefs and opinions as life goes on, and if you have more than 2 political parties as real options, people could be a bit more diverse and nuanced with their spoken opinions.

I have run and worked for businesses in which dissenting views were important to our success. I don't personally find your argument persuasive.

But I do know people who find that kind of thing very persuasive: I think it would most appeal to the type of person who believes that groups of people should be managed in a strict hierarchal manner, with the people on top managing things for their own benefit.

And—confirmation bias alert—IMO that's absolutely what both of America's parties do, and why it is difficult for their voters to get even of a fraction of the benefits that the donors (who may donate to both parties) enjoy.

Unlike the republicans, the democrats have never been able to maintain that kind of tight control over members. The CR didn't pass because "democrats" chose to let it. It passed because the republicans were able to individually influence 5 additional democrats to change their votes, in addition to the 2 who had always voted for it.

The kind of tight control that the republican party has had recently is very new and hasn't really happened before in the US.

This is a hell of a coincidence.

I don't mean to call out the Democrats as the only one who do this (on HN you simultaneously can't point out a party for something because then somehow you're being partisan, but you're also damned if you don't give an example, so it puts you in a tough spot). Just a most recent thing I've noticed.

Up until recently even on HN Schumer was nearly universally damned for letting it happen or being behind it in his capacity as a minority leader. Perhaps without evidence, and perhaps baselessly. But it's telling that as soon as I point it out in a slightly different context, then suddenly it's an opinion worthy of greying out.

>Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, continued to face criticism from members of his own party after he reversed course and allowed the stopgap spending bill to come to a vote.

It's obviously not a coincidence. I don't see how it is any kind of evidence for taking orders from above. People who don't have to face their voters any time soon (or ever) obviously have more leeway on making deals they might not like.

Passing a CR has required 60 votes in the senate since 1974. Despite this, and 60-vote majorities being very rare, shutdowns remained rare and typically very short for a very long time. This was not because the parties got together and made a deal; it was because it was common for senators in both parties to make side deals across the aisle to support their own pet projects. Having the discipline to force the senators of a party to not make such deals is something that only the republicans have managed, and only very recently.

People are angry at the democrats for being weak and a mess, but that is the normal state of affairs in US party politics.

It's not believing they actually dissented.

a) trade organizations (we're all the onion farmers in Nebraska and want to make sure the Nebraska legislature doesn't pass laws that negatively impact us and promote laws that help us)

and

b) activist organizations (we're a coalition of organizations that protect water usage in the Mississippi delta and want to pass laws that promote conservation in those states)

Those groups often choose to retain professional lobbyists but will also send groups of interested parties to lobby who are not professional lobbyists.

Do you also ban trade organizations and activist organizations in this case? Do you carve out exceptions for them and just ban the "freelance" lobbyists? Most lobbying is meeting with legislators and talking with them about issues, educating them. How do you ban that without making legislators effectively useless (or if you're cynical, even more useless)?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with lobbying, it is an essential part of the government and can not be legislated away, without crippling the entire country.

Just like, say, banning GMO bananas. But such regulation is a whole text which may need to define or refer to definitions of "GMO" and "banana", specify what's banned, exemptions, enforcement authority, penalties, and so on. Maybe 10 pages of legalese. It requires time, expertise, research. But it's still just a ban on GMO bananas.

Or a programmed UI button to show a message. Simple. The specifics of the execution are a separate matter.

It's not "indescribable", but no one will describe it to you ad hoc and expecting it is silly.