> He pointed out that the Connectors page featured OpenAI and Anthropic, two companies that hadn’t contributed to the WordPress project and nobody had complained about their inclusion. He said Google had contributed in the past but had stopped.
> “… how ridiculous is it attacking Akismet, and Automattic, and blocking the thing the person who is our [release] lead asked for,” Mullenweg wrote.
That may be true for this specific use case, but the protection on bigger services could be easily rolled back. E.g., law enforcement was able to ask Google for "tell me everyone who was in this specific area during this time" [0] and is still able to ask "give me everyone who searched for a specific term" [1].
They asked Google for “who searched for this address or this person’s name” and got back a list of people. That’s chilling (vs - eg - “what’s this specific person’s search history?”).
Makes you think about this capability if the government decided to crack down on specific types of speech.
Google shouldn’t store this information in the first place.
The court relied on Google's TOS to conclude that users opted to use the service, fully aware of their data being stored:
* when a person performs a Google search, he or she is aware (at least constructively) that Google collects a significant amount of data and will provide that data to law enforcement personnel in response to an enforceable search warrant. For present purposes, what Google does with that information, including the standards it imposes upon itself before providing that information to investigators, is irrelevant. For Fourth Amendment purposes, what matters is that the user is informed that Google—a third party—will collect and store that information.
IANAL and can't understand whether now, every 3rd party storing my data is obligated to share it without a warrant.
If new apps are automatically surfaced, how do you know you’re getting the authentic app? Eg “Zilow” vs “Zillow” or something… is this the new typosquatting?
ChatGPT can also suggest apps when they’re relevant to the conversation. For example, if you’re talking about buying a new home, ChatGPT can surface the Zillow app as a suggestion so you can browse listings that match your budget on an interactive map right inside ChatGPT.
[…]
As more developers build with the Apps SDK, the list of what’s possible will keep growing. Because these apps appear naturally in your chats, you’ll find them when they’re most likely to be useful.
Looks really cool! I had slight trouble understanding whether the repo is the complete codebase or if it connects to a separate backend.
Does one host the server or is it connecting to Airweave backend? Put another way: how does Airweave make $$ and where does data stay at rest (if it stays anywhere)?
Doctorow also focuses more on the decision NOT to expand flocks (which comes late in WSJj. Really easy to say “it’s just supply and demand” while obfuscating that you’re limiting supply.
An easy (ish) option here is to use autosquashing [1], which lets you create individual commits (saving your work - yay!) and then eventually clean em up into a single commit!
Eg
git commit -am “Starting work on this important feature”
# make some changes
git add . && git commit —-squash “I made a change” HEAD
Then once you’re all done, you can do an auto squash interactive rebase and combine them all into your original change commit.
You can also use `git reset —-soft $BRANCH_OR_COMITTISH` to go back to an earlier commit but leave all changes (except maybe new files? Sigh) staged.
You also might check out `git reflog` to find commits you might’ve orphaned.
16 participants and 20 controls is small enough that you might miss a subset of people that do have reactions to gluten. My associate has huge migraines when he eats gluten, but does not have celiac disease.
Looking forward to more research here (and at least they said “casts doubt” rather than “disproven”)
> He pointed out that the Connectors page featured OpenAI and Anthropic, two companies that hadn’t contributed to the WordPress project and nobody had complained about their inclusion. He said Google had contributed in the past but had stopped. > “… how ridiculous is it attacking Akismet, and Automattic, and blocking the thing the person who is our [release] lead asked for,” Mullenweg wrote.