How was it "against their consent?" The Siri AI / Apple Intelligence feature required a user to explicitly enable it. It didn't just get enabled for you.
I know this because I just explicitly enabled it, and now I have the new Spotlight search. I didn't have it before I enabled it.
No, this is downloaded and installed upon installation of MacOS 27. The 30 GiB of "Apple Intelligence" is sitting on my disk against my consent. I've even taken pains to do all of the hacks (save for the novel one in this repo) to disable Siri AI.
You're not including the physical supply chain energy consumption of distributing video game equipment in this analysis. Nobody ships LLMs to big box stores and tries to sell them to consumers.
You are delegating work and reviewing delegated work, but not managing. No performance coaching, no career development, no mentoring, no conflict resolution, no influencing opinions, and on and on.
So it looks like you're doing all the management work required by your reports, and if your reports were more capable you'd need to do more of the other things mentioned as well.
My original comment was to signal that if all you do now is write descriptions to feed to agents then you're not a programmer any more but you've become a manager as what you're doing is a management role and not an artistic or engineering one. You've changed jobs and you should be fine with that, just acknowledge it and move on, but stop fooling yourself that you're still a programmer or engineer. You're not, you're a manager now, even if you're not doing most of the things required of a people manager, as in your comment.
That's silly. You may as well say Santiago Calatrava isn't an architect any more because he's delegating the vast majority of the architecture work for his projects.
Maybe, because I personally enjoy Emacs, but Babel cannot gather code from external files into a single place and then keep them in sync. org-babel can "tangle" source code blocks into an outside source files, but this makes the org document the authoritative source and pushes it outwards. I want something that treats the actual source code as the authoritative source. (I haven't actually used "tangle" though, so I'm open to correction.)
And no, because Emacs isn't going to be popular enough to be widely used.
> Babel cannot gather code from external files into a single place
Yes it can. org-babel-detangle copies edits you make in a tangled file back into the matching source blocks in the Org file. There's also `#+INCLUDE: "file.py" src python :lines "10-40"` and org-transclusion package - `#+transclude: [[file:foo.el::some-defun]] :src elisp` shows live content from an external file in the Org buffer.
Babel has no built-in way to import arbitrary existing files, but for the stuff that you make it make sense, it knows how to get its shit together back into one place.
I read your book when I was ten years old! I was later stoked to find our computer system at school was a Unix machine, so I could try some of the commands you explained in the story, like ps and sendmail.
Dang, my bad. Thought I cleaned that up. To be clear, I use AI to help clean up scattered thoughts, and then I edit it further but sometimes I miss the AI-isms that it inserts.
Unfortunately I think that we need to be much more judgmental than is tolerated on this forum if we want to get people to stop writing with AI assistance.
People are not going to stop spamming you with slop text unless the narrative is "Using AI for writing is a mark of poor literacy/low intelligence".
I had an argument with Steve Jobs about pie menus at the Educom conference in Washington DC, October 26 1988 -- right after he finally shipped NeXTSTEP (people had been teasing it as vaporware with "NeVRSTEP" t-shirts).
I was demonstrating the work I'd done at the UMD Human Computer Interaction Lab on a color Sun 3/60 that Sun lent me to use at their booth, which happened to be right across from the NeXT booth.
Ben Shneiderman dragged Steve Jobs over to the Sun booth, and I gave him a NeWS demo for about half an hour: HyperTIES, UniPress Emacs, pie menus, PostScript windows in arbitrary shapes — the Hubble Space Telescope in orbit, Bill Joy's head popping up when you pointed at it, that kind of thing. Jobs has RELIGION about UI, and he argued wonderfully. He also has volume. On the show floor, in a suit and tie, he was jumping up and down yelling:
"That sucks! That sucks! Wow, that's neat! That sucks!"
Not discouraged, I figured one neat to three sucks was a good score from Steve Jobs. When I explained how flexible NeWS was -- programmable PostScript in the window system, malleable windows, extensible UI, transforming all menus of all apps into pie menus, etc -- he told me:
"I don't need flexibility -- I got my window system right the first time!"
Okay, agree to disagree. Then I gave him a free NeWS "NeRD" button, which he gracefully accepted, then he departed leaving my reality intact and undistorted.
So empthought's joke isn't far from the design philosophy. NeXT was world-class software, but malleability for the user was exactly what Jobs was proud of not offering. That's a big part of why the Emacs / NeWS / PostScript / Smalltalk / Self / Oberon / JavaScript / AJAX branch of computing and the Mac / NeXT / Display PostScript / Objective C / Cocoa branch diverged.
Also, during the conference I was giving essentially the same rolling demos to anyone who walked by, and some scruffy looking dude was hanging out and watched the whole series until it looped back to Emacs, then he finally remarked "I used to use EMACS on ITS." (i.e. the original TECO version)
...I said "Wow, what was your user name? Mine was A2DEH@AI!" and he replied "WNJ".
Only then did I realize I had been giving demos to Bill Joy, the author of VI, of UniPress Emacs for NeWS, and of HyperTIES embedded graphical pop-up links demo with his own inflatable pop-up head. I didn't recognize him because he'd shaved his beard!
We don’t need aggregators like HN pitching AI-authored content, no matter how pedagogically sound. We can direct our own AIs to generate our own AI-authored content.
That article kicks off with a politically motivated "issue" which seems pointed at the US Govt (USG) before dealing with perceived architectural issues.
The thing about trust anchors is that they are trust anchors and not a back door. DNSSEC goes well out of its way too, to not screw up things as far as possible if something is missing. OK, client implementations do that (I haven't gone into the RFCs in too much detail).
The architectural issues alluded to seem pretty handwavy too. I deployed a slack handful of PowerDNS boxes and adding DNSSEC is basically two CLI invocations per domain and passing on the DS records to upstream. The second invocation is to add an adjustment to deal with NXDOMAIN better (can't remember the exact thing at the moment)
If it doesn't work for you then fine - don't use it!
I find it useful and thanks to a decent implementation (so far) it is trivial to implement. However, I'm going to need to get my thinking cap on for some split-horizon domains.
It doesn't work for most sites, which is why so few organizations use it. It's awfully hard to make an argument about how straightforward DNSSEC is to use after DNSSEC had to be disabled by Cloudflare and Quad9 for all of Germany because of a misconfiguration. And it's more or less impossible to take seriously as a security boundary after that. Real security protocols fail closed.
A fuck up or two doesn't invalidate DNSSEC. IT related security is hard, really hard as you well know, but not impossible nor likely perfect and always a moving target.
Putting security on top of DNS is really, really hard because DNS was invented rather a long time ago when information wanted to be free and not fettered and I wore short trousers at school and in the distant future would run an IBM System /36!
When you confidently insist on "most sites" you appear to want to rudely trample on my experience of "it works for me and my 20 at the moment DNS domains and increasing as I migrate them over". I'm taking my time - I have quite a few more to do and each one needs adding to monitoring etc.
I don't run .de and I do feel for the lads n lasses that do that buggered up a KSK roll over or whatever it was that was screwed. I think that holding up a screw up is an extremely crass and facile argument against ... anything, let alone a rather esoteric engineering function.
I don't agree with your assertion about "Real security protocols fail closed." That sounds like striving for perfection and you know as well as I do that perfect is the enemy of good.
DNSSEC for better or worse is what we have and I don't think it is too bad. It does give some guarantees within certain parameters. Any decent engineer will look at the risks/rewards and decide on effectiveness and design their solutions to a requirement ... accordingly.
I came to this thread with data. Your 20-at-the-moment DNS domains versus the current signing statistics of the Tranco Top 1000.
At the point where we're arguing about fail-open versus fail-closed, our premises are too far apart to get anywhere. We can part company here: I'm speaking, in part, for the people who believe that any viable security protocol must fail closed.
Plenty of security protocols have ultimately failed in the marketplace and been abandoned. DNSSEC is simply another one of them.
That is civil. It's relevant and important to know that tptacek is present in every thread about DNSSEC and he always posts many comments opposing it, usually with little actual substance beyond "most people don't use it therefore it must suck"
Anyone can trivially use the search bar to see that your "little actual substance" claim is comically false. One of us built an actual app for this thread.
People have been trying to make DNSSEC a thing since 1995. Even when "most websites" didn't use TLS, basically all of ecommerce did: TLS has been load-bearing since the 1990s. Meanwhile, here in 2026, it is literally true that if the root keys landed on Pastebin tonight, almost nobody would need to be paged.
1. Browsers briefly tried adopting DANE and gave up on it.
2. DNS is the wrong level of networking abstraction to do this kind of policy enforcement at, because DNS isn't plumbed for warnings and error reporting; when DNSSEC fails, whole zones simply fall of the Internet (for people who validate) as if they weren't there at all. It's the worst possible failure mode.
3. The thing you say you want can't be had with DNSSEC. You don't get "the whole chain from ICANN to your server". Any of the parent zone operators above you can decide to defect, for your zone specifically, and (particularly for state-level adversaries) for particular targets resolving your zones, without you ever knowing about it.
If any of the parent zones defects, they can trivially misissue a certificate. Having separate CAs that ddo whatever DNS says doesn't improve anything.
I know this because I just explicitly enabled it, and now I have the new Spotlight search. I didn't have it before I enabled it.