Well this is ironic, GPL advocate(s) declaring a clean implementation based on specifications infringing due to someone/something reading specs provided under license. Didn't Oracle lose that argument in court as pertains to Android implementation of Java libraries?
Our Constitution accounts for government agents gone awry so there is back and forth. The FDA can go as far as mandating a recall but they need evidence, which they obviously lack at this point or they would just mandate the recall.
This is some FDA operatives using the rules and a PR campaign to wage war on raw dairy, something that is not new in this country at all.
I don't know what their QA looks like but I don't think it's too big a stretch to think they retain samples of every batch and culture for such pathogens. Just to have the ammo to fight back.
It is entirely possible mishandling could cause this. Like the many times I've gotten home from Trader Joe's to find the 'associate' unpacking the box sliced the product package open with their box cutter.
Current state of my workflow: (your feedback is welcome, I'm an autodidact and have been self-teaching myself thus far) I also think my workflow addresses some of the pain points the OP mentioned.
If a problem is a continuation of the current or other chat, switch to it. If it is a new problem or sub-problem requiring something more extensive than a tiny refactor, a new chat is started.
From there,
Start in Ask mode. Ask about existing code I'm trying to modify. If I am interfacing with someone else's code, that is put in reach of the project and ask questions about how it produces certain results or what a function does. Ask the foundational 'bottom-up' questions, how does this work? what routine produces x? Call out specific external sources from the web if it contains relevant information, like an API. Iterate until I feel I have a grasp of what I can build with. Not only does this help me comprehend the boundaries in terms of existing capability and/or shortcomings, it seeds the context.
Move to Plan mode. Provide a robust problem statement and incorporate findings from the Ask into the problem statement, and what the desired output is. Throw in some guard rails to narrow the search path used by the LLM as it seeks the solution. Disqualify certain approaches if necessary. If the LLMs plan isn't aligned with my goals, or I remember that thing I skipped, I amend the plan. The plan prompt I typed is saved to a blank file in the text editor.
Implement.
Validate. If it works, great. Read the code and approve each change, usually I speed read this.
If it doesn't work, I tell the LLM the difference between the expected and actual result and instruct it to instrument the code to produce trace output. Then feed the trace output back into it with explanations of where the output doesn't match my expectations (often times revealing weaknesses in my problem statement). Sometimes when it is a corner case that is problematic, several iterations are required then screen for regressions. If I reach the point where I know I screwed up the planning prompt, I trash the changeds, then I revise the copypasta saved earlier and start a new Planning session.
This should surprise exactly nobody after it was disclosed back in [checks notes] 2021 that ProtonMail gave up user data to law enforcement and also changed their TOS.
>after it was disclosed back in [checks notes] 2021 that ProtonMail gave up user data to law enforcement and also changed their TOS.
You shouldn't even need that. A warrant isn't a strongly worded letter that they can just turn down. It's the law. Therefore you should assume that if the police can get a warrant, they can get your data. Even for people who don't follow the law (criminals), there's no guarantee they won't snitch on you.
Source? We need the exact claim here, because there's a fine line between "we're in switzerland, so warrants aren't a thing!" (outright false) and "we're in switzerland, which have better privacy laws than other countries!" (debatable).
> Switzerland is a fundamentally different environment. Two of the things Switzerland is most famous for are also highly conducive to data protection: privacy and neutrality.
> When a law enforcement agency in the US requests user data from a Swiss company, it is illegal for that company to provide the data. At Proton, we reject all data requests from foreign agencies.
> Proton and other Swiss companies will only hand over user data when ordered to do so by a Swiss authority. And even then, Proton’s general policy is to challenge data requests whenever possible and only comply after all legal remedies have been exhausted.
So maybe your parent poster is confused? They do claim that being Swiss protects them from requests from foreign entities, but not Swiss entities. Which is what happened here, the Swiss authorities asked Proton for the data, then they handed it to the FBI.
Has Proton challenged the data and “only complied after all legal remedies have been exhausted”, though? That’s another question.
I wonder if the FBI knew it was going to be a pain in the ass asking for actual account access from the Swiss so they asked for financial records instead. Terrorism charges look pretty serious (regardless of how legitimate they are) so I'm sure that's what pushed the Swiss and Proton to comply.
But the Swiss have the notion of a warrant, no? So if a Swiss judge or official issues a proper warrant, then a Swiss company or citizen is obliged to comply with it.
Read the wording, they aren't complying with US warrants, they are complying with Swiss-issued warrants. US LE/Intel agencies figured out this loophole some 20 years ago.
This is coming from California, a distinctly capitalist state, and refers to a list published by the US Federal Department of Justice, which reports to a distinctly capitalist (or... at a minimum, a distinctly non-communist) administration.
It also doesn't get in the way of the US's (already extraordinarily loose) firearms sale and acquisition doctrine which regularly costs innocent lives with the pretext of resisting a tyrannical government (which, it appears, people aren't actually that interested in doing now that one's in power).
My high school computer lab instructor would tell me when I was frustrated that my code was misbehaving, "It's doing exactly what you're telling it to do".
Once I mastered the finite number of operations and behaviors, I knew how to tell "it" what to do and it would work. The only thing different about vibe coding is the scale of operations and behaviors. It is doing exactly what you're telling it to do. And also expectations need to be aligned. Don't think you can hand over architecture and design to the LLM; that's still your job. The gain is, the LLM will deal with the proper syntax, api calls, etc. and work as a reserach tool on steroids if you also (from another mentor later in life) ask good questions.
reply