But do you also sometimes leave out AI for steps the AI often does for you, like the conceptualisation or the implementation? Would it be possible for you to do these steps as efficiently as before the use of AI? Would you be able to spot the mistakes the AI makes in these steps, even months or years along those lines?

The main issue I have with AI being used in tasks is that it deprives you from using logic by applying it to real life scenarios, the thing we excel at. It would be better to use AI in the opposite direction you are currently use it as: develop methods to view the works critically. After all, if there is one thing a lot of people are bad at, it’s thorough critical thinking. We just suck at knowing of all edge cases and how we test for them.

Let the AI come up with unit tests, let it be the one that questions your work, in order to get a better perspective on it.

Honestly, I think that this was a horrid read. It felt so unfocused, shallow and at times contradictory.

For example, at the top it talked about how software implementation has the highest adoption rate while code review/acceptance has the lowest, yet it never really talks about why that is apart from some shallow arguments (which I will come back later), or how to integrate AI more there.

And it never reached any depth, as any topic only gets grazed shortly before moving to the next, to the point where the pitfalls of overuse of AI (tech debt, security issues, etc.) are mentioned, twice, with no apparent acknowledgement of its former mention, and never mentioned how these issues get created nor show any examples.

And what I think is the funniest contradiction is that from the start, including the title, the article pushes for speed, yet near the end of the article, it discourages this thinking, saying that pushing dev teams for faster development will lead to corner cutting, and that for a better AI adoption one shouldn’t focus on development speed. Make up your damn mind before writing the article!

I haven’t watched the video yet, but I think TADC has unwillingly joined the “kids” content mill, which is probably what might be referenced.

Even Gooseworx dislikes how those content mill channels have abused TADC’s popularity for their own profit while neither she nor Glitch can do much about it.

Funnily enough, Signal has circumvented the issue by marking their chat window as DRM content, making it invisible to Recall.

I’m not the one who you asked, but I’d still give some feedback of my own. Musk as a person is a difficult character. I would even go as far as calling him narcissistic.

• He got thrown out of PayPal for his incessant micromanagement and disruptions to the flow of the company
• he bought himself into Tesla to replace the CEO with himself
• he tends to depict himself as one of the greatest tech geniuses out there, yet often the plans he presents to the public are often poorly thought out and serve no other purpose than to show his “talents”
• when his proposal to build a tiny submarine for the Than Luang cave rescue was shot down and a British diver was chosen instead he resorted to call the diver a “pedo guy”
• his latest attempts in politics, especially concerning DOGE feel completely half baked and, again, how he presents himself in his position feels more like an ego trip than something more reasonable
• he publicly had talks with the controversial German political party “Alternative für Deutschland”, which are currently legally considered “assured right-wing extremists” and have had a history of having Nazis and Nazi sympathisers in their ranks

I generally can’t trust someone who seems to put himself first at everything to handle anything related to security when the role allows him to exploit it for his own gains. And I do not trust someone who supports political groups known for trying to oppress minorities to defend actual rights for free speech.

The question is whether this actually is E2EE, as it’s easy to fake by using a man in the middle attack and hard to prove. The only real way to prove it for sure is to run a third party security audit, like Signal does.

Taking down the old system doesn’t inspire confidence either, as this downtime could easily been used to interrupt old conversations in order to implement a way to decrypt the messages on the servers before passing it on to the actual recipient, as all keys would have to be re-issued.

Honestly, Telegramm always seemed to me a bit shifty since I learnt E2EE for chats was opt-in.

You are forgetting targeted attacks. A blind attack would pretty much not have much of an effect indeed, however if the attacker knows the machine, then it’s easy for the attackers to exploit these vulnerability if left “out in the open”, and cause havoc, possibly create a lot of damages or leech informations pumped into those machines via old Windows installations.

Quick question about the overwrite passes: is it overwritten with random numbers or is there a sequence of passes?

Is there a benefit from this over the inbuilt Secure Erase functionality in most SSDs/NVMEs? To my knowledge, it instantly dumps the current from all cells, emptying the data on it.

Furthermore, another issue with SSDs/NVMEs is that it automatically excludes bad blocks, meaning that classic read/write operations can’t even reach those blocks anyways. Theoretically that feature could also be used against you to preserve the data on the disk by marking all blocks as bad, rendering them as inaccessible by the file system.

Of course there’s also the issue of Secure Erase not being implemented properly in some drives, leading to the bad blocks not being touched by the hardware chip during that procedure.