Agreed. seatbelt/sandbox-exec has been “deprecated” for many, many years yet it still underlies all of the system’s sandboxing and Claude et al. use it for their own sandboxes. (And so do I — writing seatbelt rules is the only chance I get to write lisp-flavored anything these days.)
This is only tangentially related, but libuv and mio's Windows implementations use the undocumented AFD readiness-based poll interface [1], since there isn't a documented readiness-based interface on Windows. The undocumented interface is now effectively stable since, among other reasons, Microsoft uses Tokio in some of its products.
libuv does all sorts of shenanigans, like using the undocumented fields in STARTUPINFOW the CRT uses to pass file descriptors to processes inheriting handles so that you can open whatever file descriptor you need in your children processes like in POSIX
But Microsoft kind of expects this crap and will support it until the end of time; Apple can't give a crap until and will readily break programs even when they use legal APIs
> Decoupling the User/Kernel boundary in Windows is a monumental task and highly non-trivial, however, we have been working hard to stabilize this boundary across all of Windows to provide our customers the flexibility to run down-level containers. Starting with Windows 11 and Windows Server 2022 we are enabling the ability to run process-isolated WS2022 containers on Windows 11 hosts.
AppleCare+ annual is perpetual as long as you keep paying it (and Apple offers to switch to that when your 3-year lump sum expires if you choose that instead). I’m guessing it ends whenever they officially discontinue hardware support, which has traditionally been about 7 years after the last unit is produced, but I haven’t reached that yet to know for sure.
Great taste in logic games! If you enjoy Sumaddle, you might like Picas y Fijas — it's another fantastic puzzle game based on deducing a secret code through logical feedback (like Bulls and Cows/Mastermind). Perfect if you want a different type of logic challenge!
This headline unfortunately offers more smoke than light. This article has nothing to do with the current tête-à-tête with the Pentagon. It is discussing one specific change to Anthropic's "Responsible Scaling Policy" that the company publicly released today as version "3.0".
> This article has nothing to do with the current tête-à-tête with the Pentagon.
The article yes, but we cannot be sure about its topic. We definitely cannot claim that they are unrelated. We don't know. It's possible that the two things have nothing to do with each other. It's also possible that they wanted to prevent worse requests and this was a preventive measure.
My theory is that Anthropic has been wanting to make this change and doing it now while they’re making a (leaked to the) public stand in the name of ethics was a good opportunity.
Honest question: why have an elaborate theory with no evidence when the simple facts support a much simpler conclusion?
Anthropic is free to do what they want. I can’t imagine the board meeting where this triple bank shot of goading the government into threatening the company to do what they want.
I don't think it's that elaborate. I didn't mean to suggest they intentionally goaded the government into this confrontation. I figure it's a simpler "Oh look, we now have a good opportunity to make that announcement that we were worried about." Considering it's probably the same high-level decision makers on both choices it doesn't need a board meeting. And yes they're absolutely free to do what they want, but they're also not blind to how the public will view their decisions.
The president can only pardon crimes against the United States. Even if removed to federal court, state charges remain state charges and the judge & jury must follow state laws. Only the venue changes, with the intent being that the federal judge will potentially serve as a more neutral arbiter.
Hmm... this is far outside my domain but apparently there has been no litigation deciding on this yet[].
While no court has conclusively decided this issue, precedent and the structure of the Constitution dictate that answer is “no.” The availability of an immunity defense arising under federal law does not change which sovereign is prosecuting the offense. The president may not pardon such offenses even when they have been removed to federal court. This stands in sharp contrast to convictions under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, which allows federal courts to incorporate state criminal law to cover acts committed on federal land not otherwise covered by federal law (for example, a domestic assault that takes place on a military base), and which may be pardoned by the president. Those are federal offenses—“against the United States”—because the federal statute borrows the law of the state surrounding the federal enclave, and they are prosecuted by the Justice Department. The charging documents themselves arise under federal law for purposes of Article III.
Your and their argument is compelling, but so is the counter argument IMO. Seems like something that might be tested at some point. If you have any further citations where a court has decided on this would love to look over it.
Absolutely fascinating that this report is very detailed about _certain_ things... but edits the source video to fade out right at the relevant instant and then completely omits the fact that the agent called her a "fucking bitch" immediately after executing her. (The released source material is several seconds longer.)
Edit at 21:29 UTC: BBC has edited the article to include the following line: "In the final part of the video the car is seen veering down the road. The ICE agent swears." Again, that "final part" has been edited out entirely. It shows that the agent was not affected by the SUV, and maintains his iPhone in his offhand recording the incident without issue. "The ICE agent swears." is used euphemistically to obfuscate what he actually did and said, which was to angrily call the victim a "fucking bitch".
This article is 4 days old and Ocean Infinity has already given details — technical problems with one AUV (Autonomous Underwater Vehicle) and poor weather and wave conditions. There will be many such changes in location and speed during this mission, including when deploying and retrieving each of the 3 AUVs.
