The only people panicking are probably those state level actors who were using these for their own benefit.

Somewhat unrelated to the language itself:

> The compiler bootstraps through 3+ generations of self-compilation.

I guess it applies to any language compiler, but f you are self-hosting, you will naturally release binary packages. Please make sure you have enough support behind the project to setup secure build pipeline. As a user, we will never be able to see something even one nesting-level up.

I feel like there's too much of a fetish for self-hosting. There's this pernicious idea that a language isn't a 'real' language until it's self-hosted, but a self-hosted compiler imposes real costs in terms of portability, build integrity, etc.

If I ever write a compiler - God forbid, because language design is exactly the kind of elegance bike-shedding I'll never crawl my way out of - it's going to be a straight-up C89 transpiler, with conditional asm inlines for optional modern features like SIMD. It would compile on anything and run on anything, for free, forever. Why would I ever give that up for some self-hosting social cachet?

If you wrote the C89 outputting transpiler in your own language it would still be just as portable.

I'd be dependent on pre-existing binaries that are closely wedded to a particular platform (OS, libc etc), and it over time it would become more and more difficult to attest to build integrity / ensure reproducible builds. (Is the ARM build meant to run an x64 emulator as part of some lengthy historic bootstrapping process?)

Thank you for PartitionMagic!! I remember using it to undo whatever disk partitioning mistake I did when originally setting up a machine :)

I struggled with disappearing icons (like our company VPN client - which wasn't tailscale by the way) thinking the app was somehow "stuck". I would go kill the app, restart machine etc - during restart it would get fixed "automatically" by being an app earlier in the order!

Took me months to figure out it was running afterall and just hidden by the notch.

How hard is for apple to move the "least used icons" to a fold? (but still accessible)

I would love to get a Windows-like overlay which collects all those damn menu icons. The least Apple should do is giving developers proper APIs to build that, but instead Tahoe broke so many menu bar managers it's not funny anymore. Ice, Sanebar, Bartender,... none of them work reliably.

You can hold command and drag the icons under the notch to make the invisible ones eventually show

Somewhat counter quote...

"Don’t worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you’ll have to ram them down people’s throats." -- Howard Aiken

...to mean that, usually, the good ideas are the crazy sounding ones...

Well there's a survivor bias that I think plays into the quote.

If its a good idea that's obvious, it's already used widely. If its not obvious, you'll still have to convince people. None of that requires lots of lies, though.

Not everything done by claude-code is decided by LLM. They need the wrapper to be deterministic (or one-time generated) code?

He was told, he had a call from Pope

Heh, classic Mike (not the Pope one)

I think the point would be that - some random upcoming revision of claude-code could remove or simply change the config name just as silently as it was introduced.

People might genuinely want some other software to do the sandboxing. Something other than the fox.

The UI options are also shady af. The setting reads

Enabled - "You will have access to this feature" as help text. Disabled - "You will not have access to this feature".

WTF does that mean?

I saw that too, it feels like it's worded to make it sound like it's mandatory for Copilot. Based on their blog post the "feature" is them training on your data.

Unless you have some first hand information that I have, you are more than 10x off.

> I refuse to buy Youtube ad free until they drop the price to something $3 or below...

There in lies the problem. Your eye balls (assuming well employed with $$$ disposable income) is another 10x worth to advertisers.

If I were to make a guess, Youtube for sure will lose money at $14/month on your specific browser.

You are literally subsidizing internet for, let us say for arguments sake, some zip code in rural america or <sub any rural part of the world> 's Youtube streaming needs.

At least in my case, I had Youtube Red and would watch a few hours of content per day. Then I canceled and found the ads so unreasonable that I just stopped using youtube altogether. Now they make no money from me.