The main thing that makes it more powerful imo is that you can accomplish insane rebases with 1 command that would be really difficult with git.
Like let’s say you have 4 separate PRs in review that have no dependency on each other. You then work on new stuff on top of an octopus merge of all 4. You are exploring different approaches to a solution so you have several anonymous branches where you have tried different things. You want to rebase on master, so you just run jj rebase -d master. All 4 PR branches, the octopus merge, the anonymous branches, they all get rebased with that 1 command. If there are conflicts the first class conflicts mean that you can fix the conflicts whenever you want. If one of your experimental anonymous branches is in conflict but you are unlikely to go with that approach, just leave it in a conflicted state unless you change your mind that you want to actually go that direction.
They both support it via plugins. Xcode doesn’t enable it by default, you need to enable it and sign into an account. It’s not really all that different.
What commonly gets installed in those cases is actual malware, a RAT (Remote Admin Tool) that lets the attacker later run commands on your laptop (kinda like an OpenSSH server, but also punching a hole through nat and with a server that they can broadcast commands broadly to the entire fleet).
If the attacker wants to use AI to assist in looking for valuables on your machine, they won't install AI on your machine, they'll use the remote shell software to pop a shell session, and ask AI they're running on one of their machines to look around in the shell for anything sensitive.
If an attacker has access to your unlocked computer, it is already game over, and LLM tools is quite far down the list of dangerous software they could install.
Maybe we should ban common RAT software first, like `ssh` and `TeamViewer`.
They could install anything. Including Claude Code and then run it in background as agent to exfiltrate data. I'm a security professional. This is unacceptable
I think the parent commenter was pointing out that, instead of installing Claude Code, they could just install actual malware. It's like that phrase Raymond Chen always uses: "you're already on the other side of the airtight hatchway."
Isn't the general advice that if malware has been installed specifically due to physical access, then the entire machine should be considered permanently compromised? That is to say, if someone has access to your unlocked machine, I've heard that it's way too late for MalwareBytes to be reliable....
We had a third option in the old days: Play on private servers with your community, or on public servers where the community vote-kicks cheaters. It wasn't perfect, but it did work pretty good.
Unfortunately the industry decided to leave private/player-hosted servers behind, and modern genres like battle royale require unreasonably high player counts, so we're kind of stuck.
The latter is basically how it goes with Counter-Strike 2 which doesn't have kernel level anti-cheat.
Well, maybe not "everyone" is cheating, but there's very little punishment to cheating in that game for those who do. Do it too blatantly and get reported an cordoned off into "low trust" matchmaking, or just closet cheat with total impunity.
I suppose this then drives people to third party matchmaking services like FACEIT that do use kernel level anti-cheat (which has its own separate game culture issues to replace the cheating issue).
If you aren’t using a client that automatically uses the context of your repos then you don’t understand why people like Claude. You need to use the Claude Code CLI in order to really get the best results.
I’m not in the market for a solution where I need to trust some company with my IP. I understand that Claude also wants to serve my use case, so I take these headlines at face value as also applying to me, since they don’t qualify themselves with ‘Claude Code CLI’.
The moment anyone tries anything on that scale of geoengineering, they will immediately be blamed for whatever weather-based natural disasters that follow. I just don’t see how this can work without creating massive diplomatic tensions.
In 2022, international policy cleaned up shipping fuels. Without the sulfur, however, the “ship tracks” ceased. Without the marine clouds seeded by dirty fuels, the warming impact of shipping increased by 30%.
We could reduce it again by 70% or more without dirty fuels, with approaches like aerosolizing salt water.
Global warming mitigation will take a lot of little things. It’s not one big effort—and people won’t sue for the same reason oil companies aren’t liable for weather.
My point is that it can’t just be about carbon. That’s not actually the root cause. It’s the heat balance. We can either absorb less or radiate more. Both offer solution spaces.
I mean, if I had Elon Musk money, I'd build some kind of giant carbon capture mechanism. Perhaps I'd buy the largest basalt quarry I could find and start sequestering carbon at a planetary scale. It would cost a ton of money, but I'd do it in secret. If it worked, eventually it would show up on the scales, and I'd emerge from the shadows. This particular method of carbon capture could potentially work at a planetary scale and could potentially be done in secret, at huge cost, but the only blocking factor today is money.
This is the answer to carbon storage by the way, people just do not know about it. There's more than enough reactive mineral sites on the planet. The process is basically just dissolving CO2 into water, heating it, and soaking basalt in it to allow crystals to form. The water becomes heavier than ground water and can simply be poured into the Earth. The unsolved problems are optimization problems: direct air capture of CO2, using saltwater, that sort of thing.
If the world's billionaire class decided to buy carbon sequestering, we could have global CO2 levels returned to 1900 levels within a decade or two. The technology exists, the economic willpower does not.
> Potentially, basalt could solve all the world's CO2 problems says Sandra: "The storage capacity is such that, in theory, basalts could permanently hold the entire bulk of CO2 emissions derived from burning all fossil fuel on Earth."
Having said all of that, this is likely the most dystopian option. It's the "tech bails us out, yet again" solution because we could deploy it thoroughly enough that we can solve climate change without addressing any of the existential issues that got us here. The right combination of corporate+government partnership commercializing this technology and making it mandatory is a very plausible way to arrive at "there's 4 corporations on Earth that run the show" a la Aliens.
It's very much the wrong time to scale carbon capture. Doing some pilot plants for research is a good idea, but if your goal is to see the effects on the global plots, you should be working on something else.
There's a sibling with the long-form reasoning. The problem is that we are pushing a lot of new carbon into the atmosphere, you just won't be able to scale anything enough and there's a really big opportunity cost to try to push the tide away.
Carbon capture is probably the only geoengineering thing you could do that isn’t going to be massively controversial. Probably not practical though.
The other options mentioned like messing with the atmosphere to make it reflect more heat into space will likely cause wars due to lack of global consensus
I think you don’t understand the true scale of the problem. Just the additional fossil carbon being put in the atmosphere by the US alone is trillions of KG/yr.
Not only is there no way to hide trying to do something about it at that scale, there is no single site (or even multiple sites) that could handle that amount of sequestration - we’re talking hundreds.
And even Elon Musk could not afford it, even if he dumped everything he had into it.
No, but you could do enough of it in secret with Elon Musk resources to prove that it's both planetarily viable and doesn't cause catastrophes by existing and then lend your political weight to having it scaled up globally. By the time the public heard about it, it would already be a done deal.
I think you could prove it out at a scale that people could measure on planetary CO2 sensors for a couple dozen billion dollars, then take that data to a sitting POTUS you're friendly with and work out a multi-trillion dollar commercialization plan, using the USA's global bullying power to immediately establish a global monopoly.
A particularly cynical view would be this CEO buying global laws that dictate carbon neutrality while simultaneously also making it impossible to achieve without his CCS. Then merely canceling a sales contract topples a regime and you've arrived a global corporatocracy.
> > No, but you could do enough of it in secret with Elon Musk resources to prove that it's both planetarily viable and doesn't cause catastrophes by existing and then lend your political weight to having it scaled up globally. By the time the public heard about it, it would already be a done deal.
> Mind doing some math and showing your work?
I don’t see how anyone could spend tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in secret, so I’m not sure how important it is to show their work. I found the premise a bit absurd.
Yeah this is good if you, for some reason, rebase then merge without fast forwarding. I never understood doing this. If I'm going to be ignoring those commits when bisecting then they are useless commits just using up disk space IMO.
Does it work well with a classic merge workflow? I haven't worked that way (without rebasing) for a long time.
The whole point of bisect is to make it quicker to find a point in a potentially long list of commits. Finding the feature first then bisecting within the branch is only going to make it slower, and requires you to manually restart the bisect.
I use the commit message to add ticket numbers to things to group commits.
Like let’s say you have 4 separate PRs in review that have no dependency on each other. You then work on new stuff on top of an octopus merge of all 4. You are exploring different approaches to a solution so you have several anonymous branches where you have tried different things. You want to rebase on master, so you just run jj rebase -d master. All 4 PR branches, the octopus merge, the anonymous branches, they all get rebased with that 1 command. If there are conflicts the first class conflicts mean that you can fix the conflicts whenever you want. If one of your experimental anonymous branches is in conflict but you are unlikely to go with that approach, just leave it in a conflicted state unless you change your mind that you want to actually go that direction.
reply