10 interesting stories served every morning and every evening.




1 1,043 shares, 84 trendiness

Intel Core Ultra 3 & LPCAMM2

When you’re ready for more per­for­mance, you can up­grade in­di­vid­ual com­po­nents in­stead of re­plac­ing your en­tire lap­top. Install a new Mainboard for gen­er­a­tional proces­sor up­grades, add mem­ory to han­dle heav­ier work­loads, or ex­pand your stor­age to in­crease ca­pac­ity or en­able dual boot­ing. The Framework Marketplace makes it easy to find the com­pat­i­ble parts you need.

...

Read the original on frame.work »

2 883 shares, 50 trendiness

Laws of Software Engineering

Organizations de­sign sys­tems that mir­ror their own com­mu­ni­ca­tion struc­ture.

Premature op­ti­miza­tion is the root of all evil.

With a suf­fi­cient num­ber of API users, all ob­serv­able be­hav­iors of your sys­tem will be de­pended on by some­body.

Leave the code bet­ter than you found it.

YAGNI (You Aren’t Gonna Need It)

Don’t add func­tion­al­ity un­til it is nec­es­sary.

Adding man­power to a late soft­ware pro­ject makes it later.

A com­plex sys­tem that works is in­vari­ably found to have evolved from a sim­ple sys­tem that worked.

All non-triv­ial ab­strac­tions, to some de­gree, are leaky.

Every ap­pli­ca­tion has an in­her­ent amount of ir­re­ducible com­plex­ity that can only be shifted, not elim­i­nated.

A dis­trib­uted sys­tem can guar­an­tee only two of: con­sis­tency, avail­abil­ity, and par­ti­tion tol­er­ance.

Small, suc­cess­ful sys­tems tend to be fol­lowed by ov­erengi­neered, bloated re­place­ments.

A set of eight false as­sump­tions that new dis­trib­uted sys­tem de­sign­ers of­ten make.

Every pro­gram at­tempts to ex­pand un­til it can read mail.

There is a cog­ni­tive limit of about 150 sta­ble re­la­tion­ships one per­son can main­tain.

The square root of the to­tal num­ber of par­tic­i­pants does 50% of the work.

Those who un­der­stand tech­nol­ogy don’t man­age it, and those who man­age it don’t un­der­stand it.

In a hi­er­ar­chy, every em­ployee tends to rise to their level of in­com­pe­tence.

The min­i­mum num­ber of team mem­bers whose loss would put the pro­ject in se­ri­ous trou­ble.

Companies tend to pro­mote in­com­pe­tent em­ploy­ees to man­age­ment to limit the dam­age they can do.

Work ex­pands to fill the time avail­able for its com­ple­tion.

The first 90% of the code ac­counts for the first 90% of de­vel­op­ment time; the re­main­ing 10% ac­counts for the other 90%.

It al­ways takes longer than you ex­pect, even when you take into ac­count Hofstadter’s Law.

When a mea­sure be­comes a tar­get, it ceases to be a good mea­sure.

Anything you need to quan­tify can be mea­sured in some way bet­ter than not mea­sur­ing it.

Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

Be con­ser­v­a­tive in what you do, be lib­eral in what you ac­cept from oth­ers.

Technical Debt is every­thing that slows us down when de­vel­op­ing soft­ware.

Given enough eye­balls, all bugs are shal­low.

Debugging is twice as hard as writ­ing the code in the first place.

A pro­ject should have many fast unit tests, fewer in­te­gra­tion tests, and only a small num­ber of UI tests.

Repeatedly run­ning the same tests be­comes less ef­fec­tive over time.

Software that re­flects the real world must evolve, and that evo­lu­tion has pre­dictable lim­its.

90% of every­thing is crap.

The speedup from par­al­leliza­tion is lim­ited by the frac­tion of work that can­not be par­al­lelized.

It is pos­si­ble to achieve sig­nif­i­cant speedup in par­al­lel pro­cess­ing by in­creas­ing the prob­lem size.

The value of a net­work is pro­por­tional to the square of the num­ber of users.

Every piece of knowl­edge must have a sin­gle, un­am­bigu­ous, au­thor­i­ta­tive rep­re­sen­ta­tion.

Designs and sys­tems should be as sim­ple as pos­si­ble.

Five main guide­lines that en­hance soft­ware de­sign, mak­ing code more main­tain­able and scal­able.

An ob­ject should only in­ter­act with its im­me­di­ate friends, not strangers.

Software and in­ter­faces should be­have in a way that least sur­prises users and other de­vel­op­ers.

The less you know about some­thing, the more con­fi­dent you tend to be.

Never at­tribute to mal­ice that which is ad­e­quately ex­plained by stu­pid­ity or care­less­ness.

The sim­plest ex­pla­na­tion is of­ten the most ac­cu­rate one.

Sticking with a choice be­cause you’ve in­vested time or en­ergy in it, even when walk­ing away helps you.

The Map Is Not the Territory

Our rep­re­sen­ta­tions of re­al­ity are not the same as re­al­ity it­self.

A ten­dency to fa­vor in­for­ma­tion that sup­ports our ex­ist­ing be­liefs or ideas.

We tend to over­es­ti­mate the ef­fect of a tech­nol­ogy in the short run and un­der­es­ti­mate the im­pact in the long run.

The longer some­thing has been in use, the more likely it is to con­tinue be­ing used.

Breaking a com­plex prob­lem into its most ba­sic blocks and then build­ing up from there.

Solving a prob­lem by con­sid­er­ing the op­po­site out­come and work­ing back­ward from it.

80% of the prob­lems re­sult from 20% of the causes.

The best way to get the cor­rect an­swer on the Internet is not to ask a ques­tion, it’s to post the wrong an­swer.

...

Read the original on lawsofsoftwareengineering.com »

3 426 shares, 33 trendiness

Claude by Anthropic

For work­loads that need to run in the US, US-only in­fer­ence is avail­able at 1.1x pric­ing for in­put and out­put to­kens. Learn more.

...

Read the original on claude.com »

4 426 shares, 69 trendiness

Ed Zitron (@edzitron.com)

This is a heav­ily in­ter­ac­tive web ap­pli­ca­tion, and JavaScript is re­quired. Simple HTML in­ter­faces are pos­si­ble, but that is not what this is.

Learn more about Bluesky at bsky.so­cial and at­proto.com. It ap­pears that Anthropic has re­moved Claude Code from its $20-a-month pro sub­scrip­tion based on its pric­ing page. Anyone able to con­firm who has a $20 plan?

claude.com/​pric­ing

...

Read the original on bsky.app »

5 406 shares, 37 trendiness

Meta to start capturing employee mouse movements, keystrokes for AI training data

Listen to this ar­ti­cle in sum­ma­rized for­mat

...

Read the original on m.economictimes.com »

6 370 shares, 20 trendiness

Changes to GitHub Copilot Individual plans

Today we’re mak­ing the fol­low­ing changes to GitHub Copilot’s Individual plans to pro­tect the ex­pe­ri­ence for ex­ist­ing cus­tomers: paus­ing new sign-ups, tight­en­ing us­age lim­its, and ad­just­ing model avail­abil­ity. We know these changes are dis­rup­tive, and we want to be clear about why we’re mak­ing them and how they will af­fect you.

Agentic work­flows have fun­da­men­tally changed Copilot’s com­pute de­mands. Long-running, par­al­lelized ses­sions now reg­u­larly con­sume far more re­sources than the orig­i­nal plan struc­ture was built to sup­port. As Copilot’s agen­tic ca­pa­bil­i­ties have ex­panded rapidly, agents are do­ing more work, and more cus­tomers are hit­ting us­age lim­its de­signed to main­tain ser­vice re­li­a­bil­ity. Without fur­ther ac­tion, ser­vice qual­ity de­grades for every­one.

We’ve heard your frus­tra­tions about us­age lim­its and model avail­abil­ity, and we need to do a bet­ter job com­mu­ni­cat­ing the guardrails we are adding—here’s what’s chang­ing and why.

New sign-ups for GitHub Copilot Pro, Pro+, and Student plans are paused. Pausing sign-ups al­lows us to serve ex­ist­ing cus­tomers more ef­fec­tively.

We are tight­en­ing us­age lim­its for in­di­vid­ual plans. Pro+ plans of­fer more than 5X the lim­its of Pro. Users on the Pro plan who need higher lim­its can up­grade to Pro+. Usage lim­its are now dis­played in VS Code and Copilot CLI to make it eas­ier for you to avoid hit­ting these lim­its.

Opus mod­els are no longer avail­able in Pro plans. Opus 4.7 re­mains avail­able in Pro+ plans. As we an­nounced in our changelog, Opus 4.5 and Opus 4.6 will be re­moved from Pro+.

These changes are nec­es­sary to en­sure we can serve ex­ist­ing cus­tomers with a pre­dictable ex­pe­ri­ence. If you hit un­ex­pected lim­its or these changes just don’t work for you, you can can­cel your Pro or Pro+ sub­scrip­tion and re­ceive a re­fund for the time re­main­ing on your cur­rent sub­scrip­tion by vis­it­ing your Billing set­tings be­fore May 20..

GitHub Copilot has two us­age lim­its to­day: ses­sion and weekly (7 day) lim­its. Both lim­its de­pend on two dis­tinct fac­tors—to­ken con­sump­tion and the mod­el’s mul­ti­plier.

The ses­sion lim­its ex­ist pri­mar­ily to en­sure that the ser­vice is not over­loaded dur­ing pe­ri­ods of peak us­age. They’re set so most users should­n’t be im­pacted. Over time, these lim­its will be ad­justed to bal­ance re­li­a­bil­ity and de­mand. If you do en­counter a ses­sion limit, you must wait un­til the us­age win­dow re­sets to re­sume us­ing Copilot.

Weekly lim­its rep­re­sent a cap on the to­tal num­ber of to­kens a user can con­sume dur­ing the week. We in­tro­duced weekly lim­its re­cently to con­trol for par­al­lelized, long-tra­jec­tory re­quests that of­ten run for ex­tended pe­ri­ods of time and re­sult in pro­hib­i­tively high costs.

The weekly lim­its for each plan are also set so that most users will not be im­pacted. If you hit a weekly limit and have pre­mium re­quests re­main­ing, you can con­tinue to use Copilot with Auto model se­lec­tion. Model choice will be reen­abled when the weekly pe­riod re­sets. If you are a Pro user, you can up­grade to Pro+ to in­crease your weekly lim­its. Pro+ in­cludes over 5X the lim­its of Pro.

Usage lim­its are sep­a­rate from your pre­mium re­quest en­ti­tle­ments. Premium re­quests de­ter­mine which mod­els you can ac­cess and how many re­quests you can make. Usage lim­its, by con­trast, are to­ken-based guardrails that cap how many to­kens you can con­sume within a given time win­dow. You can have pre­mium re­quests re­main­ing and still hit a us­age limit.

Starting to­day, VS Code and Copilot CLI both dis­play your avail­able us­age when you’re ap­proach­ing a limit. These changes are meant to help you avoid a sur­prise limit.

If you are ap­proach­ing a limit, there are a few things you can do to help re­duce the chances of hit­ting it:

Use a model with a smaller mul­ti­plier for sim­pler tasks. The larger the mul­ti­plier, the faster you will hit the limit.

Consider up­grad­ing to Pro+ if you are on a Pro plan to raise your limit by over 5X.

Use plan mode (VS Code, Copilot CLI) to im­prove task ef­fi­ciency. Plan mode also im­proves task suc­cess.

Reduce par­al­lel work­flows. Tools such as /fleet will re­sult in higher to­ken con­sump­tion and should be used spar­ingly if you are near­ing your lim­its.

Why we’re do­ing this

We’ve seen us­age in­ten­sify for all users as they re­al­ize the value of agents and sub­agents in tack­ling com­plex cod­ing prob­lems. These long-run­ning, par­al­lelized work­flows can yield great value, but they have also chal­lenged our in­fra­struc­ture and pric­ing struc­ture: it’s now com­mon for a hand­ful of re­quests to in­cur costs that ex­ceed the plan price! These are our prob­lems to solve. The ac­tions we are tak­ing to­day en­able us to pro­vide the best pos­si­ble ex­pe­ri­ence for ex­ist­ing users while we de­velop a more sus­tain­able so­lu­tion.

Everything you need to mas­ter GitHub, all in one place.

Build what’s next on GitHub, the place for any­one from any­where to build any­thing.

Meet the com­pa­nies and en­gi­neer­ing teams that build with GitHub.

Catch up on the GitHub pod­cast, a show ded­i­cated to the top­ics, trends, sto­ries and cul­ture in and around the open source de­vel­oper com­mu­nity on GitHub.

We do newslet­ters, tooD­is­cover tips, tech­ni­cal guides, and best prac­tices in our bi­weekly newslet­ter just for devs.

Yes please, I’d like GitHub and af­fil­i­ates to use my in­for­ma­tion for per­son­al­ized com­mu­ni­ca­tions, tar­geted ad­ver­tis­ing and cam­paign ef­fec­tive­ness. See the GitHub Privacy Statement for more de­tails.

...

Read the original on github.blog »

7 315 shares, 19 trendiness

Tim Cook’s Impeccable Timing

It’s the na­ture of busi­ness that the eu­logy for a chief ex­ec­u­tive does­n’t hap­pen when they die, but when they re­tire, or, in the case of Apple CEO Tim Cook, an­nounce that they will step up to the role of Executive Chairman on September 1. The one mor­bid ex­cep­tion is when a CEO dies on the job — or quits be­cause they are dy­ing — and the truth of the mat­ter is that that is where any hon­est re­count­ing of Cook’s in­cred­i­bly suc­cess­ful tenure as Apple CEO, par­tic­u­larly from a fi­nan­cial per­spec­tive, has to be­gin.

The num­bers, to be clear, are ex­tra­or­di­nary. Cook be­came CEO of Apple on August 24, 2011, and in the in­ter­ven­ing 15 years rev­enue has in­creased 303%, profit 354%, and the value of Apple has gone from $297 bil­lion to $4 tril­lion, a stag­ger­ing 1,251% in­crease.

The rea­son for Cook’s ac­ces­sion in 2011 be­came clear a mere six weeks later, when Steve Jobs passed away from can­cer on October 5, 2011. Jobs’ death is­n’t the rea­son Cook was cho­sen — Cook had al­ready served as in­terim CEO while Jobs un­der­went treat­ment in 2009 — but I think the tim­ing played a ma­jor role in mak­ing Cook ar­guably the great­est non-founder CEO of all time.

Peter Thiel in­tro­duced the con­cept of Zero To One thusly:

When we think about the fu­ture, we hope for a fu­ture of progress. That progress can take one of two forms. Horizontal or ex­ten­sive progress means copy­ing things that work — go­ing from 1 to n. Horizontal progress is easy to imag­ine be­cause we al­ready know what it looks like. Vertical or in­ten­sive progress means do­ing new things — go­ing from 0 to 1. Vertical progress is harder to imag­ine be­cause it re­quires do­ing some­thing no­body else has ever done. If you take one type­writer and build 100, you have made hor­i­zon­tal progress. If you have a type­writer and build a word proces­sor, you have made ver­ti­cal progress.

Steve Jobs made 0 to 1 prod­ucts, as he re­minded the au­di­ence in the in­tro­duc­tion to his most fa­mous keynote:

Every once in a while, a rev­o­lu­tion­ary prod­uct comes along that changes every­thing. First of all, one’s very for­tu­nate if one gets to work on one of these in your ca­reer. Apple’s been very for­tu­nate: it’s been able to in­tro­duce a few of these into the world.

In 1984, we in­tro­duced the Macintosh. It did­n’t just change Apple, it changed the whole com­puter in­dus­try. In 2001, we in­tro­duced the first iPod. It did­n’t just change the way we all lis­ten to mu­sic, it changed the en­tire mu­sic in­dus­try.

Well, to­day we’re in­tro­duc­ing three rev­o­lu­tion­ary prod­ucts of this class. The first one: a widescreen iPod with touch con­trols. The sec­ond: a rev­o­lu­tion­ary mo­bile phone. And the third is a break­through Internet com­mu­ni­ca­tions de­vice. Three things…are you get­ting it? These are not three sep­a­rate de­vices. This is one de­vice, and we are call­ing it iPhone.

Steve Jobs would, three years later, also in­tro­duce the iPad, which makes four dis­tinct prod­uct cat­e­gories if you’re count­ing. Perhaps the most im­por­tant 0 to 1 prod­uct Jobs cre­ated, how­ever, was Apple it­self, which raises the ques­tion: what makes Apple Apple?

What Makes Apple Apple” is­n’t a new ques­tion; it was the cen­tral ques­tion of Apple University, the in­ter­nal train­ing pro­gram the com­pany launched in 2008. Apple University was hailed on the out­side as a Steve Jobs cre­ation, but while I’m sure he green lit the con­cept, it was clear to me as an in­tern on the Apple University team in 2010, that the pro­gram’s dri­ving force was Tim Cook.

The core of the pro­gram, at least when I was there, was what be­came known as The Cook Doctrine:

We be­lieve that we’re on the face of the Earth to make great prod­ucts, and that’s not chang­ing.

We be­lieve in the sim­ple, not the com­plex.

We be­lieve that we need to own and con­trol the pri­mary tech­nolo­gies be­hind the prod­ucts we make, and par­tic­i­pate only in mar­kets where we can make a sig­nif­i­cant con­tri­bu­tion.

We be­lieve in say­ing no to thou­sands of pro­jects so that we can re­ally fo­cus on the few that are truly im­por­tant and mean­ing­ful to us.

We be­lieve in deep col­lab­o­ra­tion and cross-pol­li­na­tion of our groups, which al­low us to in­no­vate in a way that oth­ers can­not.

And frankly, we don’t set­tle for any­thing less than ex­cel­lence in every group in the com­pany, and we have the self-hon­esty to ad­mit when we’re wrong and the courage to change.

And I think, re­gard­less of who is in what job, those val­ues are so em­bed­ded in this com­pany that Apple will do ex­tremely well.

Cook ex­plained this on Apple’s January 2009 earn­ings call, dur­ing Jobs’ first leave of ab­sence, in re­sponse to a ques­tion about how Apple would fare with­out its founder. It’s a bril­liant state­ment, but it is — as the last para­graph makes clear — ul­ti­mately about main­tain­ing, nur­tur­ing, and grow­ing what Jobs built.

That is why I started this Article by high­light­ing the tim­ing of Cook’s as­cent to the CEO role. The chal­lenge for CEOs fol­low­ing iconic founders is that the per­son who took the com­pany from 0 to 1 usu­ally sticks around for 2, 3, 4, etc.; by the time they step down the only way for­ward is of­ten down. Jobs, how­ever, by virtue of leav­ing the world too soon, left Apple only a few years af­ter its most im­por­tant 0 to 1 prod­uct ever, mean­ing it was Cook who was in charge of grow­ing and ex­pand­ing Apple’s most rev­o­lu­tion­ary de­vice yet.

Cook, to be clear, man­aged this bril­liantly. Under his watch the iPhone not only got bet­ter every year, but ex­panded its mar­ket to every car­rier in ba­si­cally every coun­try, and ex­panded the line from one model in two col­ors to five mod­els in a plethora of col­ors sold at the scale of hun­dreds of mil­lions of units a year.

Cook was, with­out ques­tion, an op­er­a­tional ge­nius. Moreover, this was clearly the case even be­fore he scaled the iPhone to unimag­in­able scale. When Cook joined Apple in 1998 the com­pa­ny’s op­er­a­tions — cen­tered on Apple’s own fac­to­ries and ware­houses — were a mas­sive drag on the com­pany; Cook me­thod­i­cally shut them down and shifted Apple’s man­u­fac­tur­ing base to China, cre­at­ing a just-in-time sup­ply chain that year-af­ter-year co­or­di­nated a world­wide net­work of sup­pli­ers to de­liver Apple’s ever-ex­pand­ing prod­uct line to cus­tomers’ doorsteps and a fleet of beau­ti­ful and brand-ex­pand­ing stores. There was not, un­der Cook’s lead­er­ship, a sin­gle sig­nif­i­cant prod­uct is­sue or re­call.

Cook also over­saw the in­tro­duc­tion of ma­jor new prod­ucts, most no­tably AirPods and Apple Watch; the Wearables, Home, and Accessories” cat­e­gory de­liv­ered $35.4 bil­lion in rev­enue last year, which would rank 128 on the Fortune 500. Still, both prod­ucts are de­riv­a­tive of the iPhone; Cook’s sig­na­ture 0 to 1 prod­uct, the Apple Vision Pro, is more of a 0.5.

Cook’s more mo­men­tous con­tri­bu­tion to Apple’s top line was the el­e­va­tion of Services. The Google search deal ac­tu­ally orig­i­nated in 2002 with an agree­ment to make Google the de­fault search ser­vice for Safari on the Mac, and was ex­tended to the iPhone in 2007; Google’s mo­ti­va­tion was to en­sure that Apple never com­peted for their core busi­ness, and Cook was happy to take an ever in­creas­ing amount of pure profit.

The App Store also pre­dated Cook; Steve Jobs said dur­ing the App Store’s in­tro­duc­tion that we keep 30 [percent] to pay for run­ning the App Store”, and called it the best deal go­ing to dis­trib­ute ap­pli­ca­tions to mo­bile plat­forms”. It’s im­por­tant to note that, in 2008, this was true! The App Store re­ally was a great deal.

Three years later, in a July 28, 2011 email — less than a month be­fore Cook of­fi­cially be­came CEO — Phil Schiller won­dered if Apple should lower its take once they were mak­ing $1 bil­lion a year in profit from the App Store. John Gruber, writ­ing on Daring Fireball in 2021, won­dered what might have been had Cook fol­lowed Schiller’s ad­vice:

In my imag­i­na­tion, a world where Apple had used Phil Schiller’s memo above as a game plan for the App Store over the last decade is a bet­ter place for every­one to­day: de­vel­op­ers for sure, but also users, and, yes, Apple it­self. I’ve of­ten said that Apple’s pri­or­i­ties are con­sis­tent: Apple’s own needs first, users’ sec­ond, de­vel­op­ers’ third. Apple, for ob­vi­ous rea­sons, does not like to talk about the Apple-first part of those pri­or­i­ties, but Cook made ex­plicit dur­ing his tes­ti­mony dur­ing the Epic trial that when user and de­vel­oper needs con­flict, Apple sides with users. (Hence App Tracking Transparency, for ex­am­ple.)

These pri­or­i­ties are as they should be. I’m not com­plain­ing about their or­der. But putting de­vel­oper needs third does­n’t mean they should be ne­glected or over­looked. A large base of de­vel­op­ers who are ex­perts on de­vel­op­ing and de­sign­ing for Apple’s pro­pri­etary plat­forms is an in­cred­i­ble as­set. Making those de­vel­op­ers happy — happy enough to keep them want­ing to work and fo­cus on Apple’s plat­forms — is good for Apple it­self.

I want to agree with Gruber — I was crit­i­ciz­ing Apple’s App Store poli­cies within weeks of start­ing Stratechery, years be­fore it be­came a ma­jor is­sue — but from a share­holder per­spec­tive, i.e. Cook’s ul­ti­mate bosses, it’s hard to ar­gue with Apple’s un­com­pro­mis­ing ap­proach. Last year Apple Services gen­er­ated 26% of Apple’s rev­enue and 41% of the com­pa­ny’s profit; more im­por­tantly, Services con­tin­ues to grow year-over-year, even as iPhone growth has slowed from the go-go years.

Another way to frame the Services ques­tion is to say that Gruber is con­cerned about the long-term im­por­tance of some­thing that is some­what in­ef­fa­ble — de­vel­oper will­ing­ness and de­sire to sup­port Apple’s plat­forms — which is, at least in Gruber’s mind, es­sen­tial for Apple’s long-term health. Cook, in this cri­tique, pri­or­i­tized Apple’s fi­nan­cial re­sults and share­holder re­turns over what was best for Apple in the long run.

This is­n’t the only part of Apple’s busi­ness where this cri­tique has va­lid­ity. Cook’s great­est tri­umph was, as I noted above, com­pletely over­haul­ing and sub­se­quently scal­ing Apple’s op­er­a­tions, which first and fore­most meant de­vel­op­ing a heavy de­pen­dence on China. This de­pen­dence was not in­evitable: Patrick McGee ex­plained in Apple In China, which I con­sider one of the all-time great books about the tech in­dus­try, how Apple made China into the man­u­fac­tur­ing be­he­moth it be­came. McGee added in a Stratechery Interview:

Let me just re­fer back to some­thing that you wrote I think a few months ago when you called the last 20, 25 years, like the golden age for com­pa­nies like Apple and Silicon Valley fo­cused on soft­ware and Chinese tak­ing care of the hard­ware man­u­fac­tur­ing. That is a per­fect part­ner­ship, and if we were liv­ing in a sim­u­la­tion and it ended to­mor­row, you’d give props for Apple to tak­ing ad­van­tage of the sit­u­a­tion bet­ter than any­body else.

The prob­lem is we’re prob­a­bly not liv­ing in the sim­u­la­tion and things go on, and I’ve got this rather dis­qui­et­ing con­clu­sion where, look, Apple’s still re­ally good prob­a­bly, they’re not as good as they once were un­der Jony Ive, but they’re still good at in­dus­trial de­sign and prod­uct de­sign, but they don’t do any op­er­a­tions in our own coun­try. That’s all de­pen­dent on China. You’ve called this in fact the biggest vi­o­la­tion of the Tim Cook doc­trine to own and con­trol your des­tiny, but the Chinese aren’t just do­ing the op­er­a­tions any­more, they also have in­dus­trial de­sign, prod­uct de­sign, man­u­fac­tur­ing de­sign.

It re­ally is ironic: Tim Cook built what is ar­guably Apple’s most im­por­tant tech­nol­ogy — its abil­ity to build the world’s best per­sonal com­puter prod­ucts at as­tro­nom­i­cal scale — and did so in a way that leaves Apple more vul­ner­a­ble than any­one to the de­te­ri­o­rat­ing re­la­tion­ship be­tween the United States and China. China was cer­tainly good for the bot­tom line, but was it good for Apple’s long-run sus­tain­abil­ity?

This same cri­tique — of fa­vor­ing a fi­nan­cially op­ti­mal strat­egy over long-term sus­tain­abil­ity — may also one day be levied on the biggest ques­tion Cook leaves his suc­ces­sor: what im­pact will AI have on Apple? Apple has, to date, avoided spend­ing hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars on the AI build­out, and there is one po­ten­tial fu­ture where the com­pany prof­its from AI by sell­ing the de­vices every­one uses to ac­cess com­modi­tized mod­els; there is an­other fu­ture where AI be­comes the means by which Apple’s 50 Years of Integration is fi­nally dis­rupted by com­pa­nies that ac­tu­ally in­vested in the tech­nol­ogy of the fu­ture.

If Tim Cook’s tim­ing was for­tu­nate in terms of when in Apple’s life­cy­cle he took the reins, then I would call his tim­ing in terms of when in Apple’s life­cy­cle he is step­ping down as be­ing pru­dent, both for his legacy and for Apple’s fu­ture.

Apple is, in terms of its tra­di­tional busi­ness model, in a bet­ter place than it has ever been. The iPhone line is fan­tas­tic, and sell­ing at a record pace; the Mac, mean­while, is poised to mas­sively ex­pand its mar­ket share as Apple Silicon — an­other Jobs ini­tia­tive, ap­pro­pri­ately in­vested in and nur­tured by Cook — makes the Mac the com­puter of choice for both the high end (thanks to Apple Silicon’s per­for­mance and uni­fied mem­ory ar­chi­tec­ture) and the low end (the iPhone chip-based MacBook Neo sig­nif­i­cantly ex­pands Apple’s ad­dress­able mar­ket). Meanwhile, the Services busi­ness con­tin­ues to grow. Cook is step­ping down af­ter Apple’s best-ever quar­ter, a mile­stone that very much cap­tures his tenure, for bet­ter and for worse.

At the same time, the AI ques­tion looms — and it sug­gests that Something Is Rotten in the State of Cupertino. The new Siri still has­n’t launched, and when it does, it will be with Google’s tech­nol­ogy at the core. That was, as I wrote in an Update, a mo­men­tous de­ci­sion for Apple’s fu­ture:

Apple’s plans are a bit like the al­co­holic who ad­mits that they have a drink­ing prob­lem, but promises to limit their in­take to so­cial oc­ca­sions. Namely, how ex­actly does Apple plan on re­plac­ing Gemini with its own mod­els when (1) Google has more tal­ent, (2) Google spends far more on in­fra­struc­ture, and (3) Gemini will be con­tin­u­ally in­creas­ing from the cur­rent level, where it is far ahead of Apple’s ef­forts? Moreover, there is now a new fac­tor work­ing against Apple: if this white-la­bel­ing ef­fort works, then the bar for good enough” will be much higher than it is cur­rently. Will Apple, af­ter all of the trou­ble they are go­ing through to fix Siri, ac­tu­ally be will­ing to tear out a model that works so that they can once again roll their own so­lu­tion, par­tic­u­larly when that so­lu­tion has­n’t faced the mar­ket pres­sure of ac­tu­ally work­ing, while Gemini has?

In short, I think Apple has made a good de­ci­sion here for short term rea­sons, but I don’t think it’s a short-term de­ci­sion: I strongly sus­pect that Apple, whether it has ad­mit­ted it to it­self or not, has just com­mit­ted it­self to de­pend­ing on 3rd-parties for AI for the long run.

As I noted above and in that Update, this de­ci­sion may work out; if it does­n’t, how­ever, the sting will be felt long af­ter Cook is gone. To that end, I cer­tainly hope that John Ternus, the new CEO, was heav­ily in­volved in the de­ci­sion; truth­fully, he should have made it.

To that end, it’s right that Cook is step­ping down now. Jobs might have been re­spon­si­ble for tak­ing Apple from 0 to 1, but it was Cook that took Apple from 1 to $436 bil­lion in rev­enue and $118 bil­lion in profit last year. It’s a tes­ta­ment to his ca­pa­bil­i­ties and ex­e­cu­tion that Apple did­n’t suf­fer any sort of post-founder hang­over; only time will tell if, along the way, Cook cre­ated the con­di­tions for a crash out, by virtue of he him­self for­get­ting The Cook Doctrine and what makes Apple Apple.

...

Read the original on stratechery.com »

8 306 shares, 16 trendiness

i12bp8/TagTinker: Flipper Zero app for ESL research using IR. All based on https://www.furrtek.org/?a=esl

It is in­tended only for pro­to­col study, sig­nal analy­sis, and con­trolled ex­per­i­ments on hard­ware you per­son­ally own or are ex­plic­itly au­tho­rized to test.

This repos­i­tory does not au­tho­rize ac­cess to, mod­i­fi­ca­tion of, or in­ter­fer­ence with any third-party de­ploy­ment, com­mer­cial in­stal­la­tion, or re­tail en­vi­ron­ment.

TagTinker is a Flipper Zero app for ed­u­ca­tional re­search into in­frared elec­tronic shelf-la­bel pro­to­cols and re­lated dis­play be­hav­ior on au­tho­rized test hard­ware.

It is fo­cused on:

This README in­ten­tion­ally avoids de­ploy­ment-ori­ented in­struc­tions and ex­cludes guid­ance for in­ter­act­ing with live com­mer­cial sys­tems.

Where is the .fap re­lease?

The Flipper app is source-first. Build the .fap your­self from this repos­i­tory with ufbt so it matches your firmware and lo­cal tool­chain.

What if it crashes or be­haves oddly?

The main­tainer pri­mar­ily uses TagTinker on Momentum firmware with as­set packs dis­abled and has not had is­sues in that setup. If you are us­ing a dif­fer­ent firmware branch, cus­tom as­set packs, or a heav­ily mod­i­fied de­vice setup, start by test­ing from a clean base­line.

What hap­pens if I pull the bat­tery out of the tag?

Many in­frared ESL tags store their firmware, ad­dress, and dis­play data in volatile RAM (not flash mem­ory) to save cost and en­ergy.

If you re­move the bat­tery or let it fully dis­charge, the tag will lose all pro­gram­ming and be­come un­re­spon­sive (“dead”). It usu­ally can­not be re­cov­ered with­out the orig­i­nal base sta­tion.

I found a bug or want to con­tribute — how can I get in touch?

You can con­tact me on:

I’m cur­rently trav­el­ing, so re­sponse times may be slower than usual. Feel free to open is­sues or Pull Requests any­way — con­tri­bu­tions (bug fixes, im­prove­ments, doc­u­men­ta­tion, etc.) are very wel­come and will help keep the pro­ject alive while I’m away.

TagTinker is built around the study of in­frared elec­tronic shelf-la­bel com­mu­ni­ca­tion used by fixed-trans­mit­ter la­bel­ing sys­tems.

* com­mu­ni­ca­tion is based on ad­dressed pro­to­col frames con­tain­ing com­mand, pa­ra­me­ter, and in­tegrity fields

* dis­play up­dates are car­ried as pre­pared pay­loads for sup­ported mono­chrome graph­ics for­mats

* lo­cal tool­ing in this pro­ject helps re­searchers pre­pare as­sets and per­form con­trolled ex­per­i­ments on au­tho­rized hard­ware

This pro­ject is in­tended to help re­searchers un­der­stand:

For the un­der­ly­ing re­verse-en­gi­neer­ing back­ground and deeper pro­to­col re­search, see:

TagTinker is lim­ited to home-lab and au­tho­rized re­search use, in­clud­ing:

It is not a re­tail tool, op­er­a­tional tool, or field-use util­ity.

You are solely re­spon­si­ble for en­sur­ing that any use of this soft­ware is law­ful, au­tho­rized, and ap­pro­pri­ate for your en­vi­ron­ment.

The main­tainer does not au­tho­rize, ap­prove, or par­tic­i­pate in any unau­tho­rized use of this pro­ject, and dis­claims re­spon­si­bil­ity for mis­use, dam­age, dis­rup­tion, le­gal vi­o­la­tions, or any con­se­quences aris­ing from such use.

If you do not own the hard­ware, or do not have ex­plicit writ­ten per­mis­sion to test it, do not use this pro­ject on it.

Any unau­tho­rized use is out­side the in­tended scope of this repos­i­tory and is un­der­taken en­tirely at the user’s own risk.

This is an in­de­pen­dent re­search pro­ject.

It is not af­fil­i­ated with, en­dorsed by, au­tho­rized by, or spon­sored by any elec­tronic shelf-la­bel ven­dor, re­tailer, in­fra­struc­ture provider, or sys­tem op­er­a­tor.

Any ref­er­ences to ex­ter­nal re­search, pub­lic doc­u­men­ta­tion, or re­verse-en­gi­neer­ing work are in­cluded strictly for ed­u­ca­tional and re­search con­text.

This pro­ject is a port and adap­ta­tion of the ex­cel­lent pub­lic re­verse-en­gi­neer­ing work by fur­rtek / PrecIR and re­lated com­mu­nity re­search.

Licensed un­der the GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPL-3.0).

See the LICENSE file for de­tails.

This soft­ware is pro­vided AS IS, with­out war­ranty of any kind, ex­press or im­plied.

In no event shall the au­thors or copy­right hold­ers be li­able for any claim, dam­ages, or other li­a­bil­ity aris­ing from the use of this soft­ware.

This repos­i­tory is main­tained as a nar­rowly scoped ed­u­ca­tional re­search pro­ject.

The main­tainer does not au­tho­rize, en­cour­age, con­done, or ac­cept re­spon­si­bil­ity for use against third-party de­vices, de­ployed com­mer­cial sys­tems, re­tail in­fra­struc­ture, or any en­vi­ron­ment where the user lacks ex­plicit per­mis­sion.

...

Read the original on github.com »

9 287 shares, 25 trendiness

OAuth Supply Chain Attack Exposes the Hidden Risk in Platform Environment Variables

Your en­vi­ron­ment, your choice — de­ploy Trend Vision One™ as SaaS or cus­tomer hosted

See more

Stop ad­ver­saries with un­ri­valed vis­i­bil­ity, pow­ered by the in­tel­li­gence of XDR, Agentic SIEM, and Agentic SOAR to leave at­tack­ers with nowhere left to hide

Learn more

The most trusted cloud se­cu­rity plat­form for de­vel­op­ers, se­cu­rity teams, and busi­nesses

Learn more

Extend vis­i­bil­ity to the cloud and stream­line SOC in­ves­ti­ga­tions

Learn more

Secure your data cen­ter, cloud, and con­tain­ers with­out com­pro­mis­ing per­for­mance by lever­ag­ing a cloud se­cu­rity plat­form with CNAPP ca­pa­bil­i­ties

Learn more

Simplify se­cu­rity for your cloud-na­tive ap­pli­ca­tions with ad­vanced con­tainer im­age scan­ning, pol­icy-based ad­mis­sion con­trol, and con­tainer run­time pro­tec­tion

Learn more

Proactive Protection for Every Phase of the Software Development Lifecycle

Learn more

Defend the end­point through every stage of an at­tack

Learn more

Stop ad­ver­saries faster with a broader per­spec­tive and bet­ter con­text to hunt, de­tect, in­ves­ti­gate, and re­spond to threats from a sin­gle plat­form

Learn more

Optimized pre­ven­tion, de­tec­tion, and re­sponse for end­points, servers, and cloud work­loads

Learn more

Expand the power of XDR with net­work de­tec­tion and re­sponse

Learn more

Stop ad­ver­saries faster with a broader per­spec­tive and bet­ter con­text to hunt, de­tect, in­ves­ti­gate, and re­spond to threats from a sin­gle plat­form

Learn more

Protect against known, un­known, and undis­closed vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties in your net­work

Learn more

Ensure uni­fied vis­i­bil­ity and con­trol for every GenAI ser­vice, user, and in­ter­ac­tion

Learn more

Stay ahead of phish­ing, BEC, ran­somware and scams with AI-powered email se­cu­rity, stop­ping threats with speed, ease and ac­cu­racy

Learn more

End-to-end iden­tity se­cu­rity from iden­tity pos­ture man­age­ment to de­tec­tion and re­sponse

Learn more

Discover AI so­lu­tions de­signed to pro­tect your en­ter­prise, sup­port com­pli­ance, and en­able re­spon­si­ble in­no­va­tion

Learn more

Strengthen your de­fenses with the in­dus­try’s first proac­tive cy­ber­se­cu­rity AI - no blind spots, no sur­prises

Proactive AI Security

Harness un­par­al­leled breadth and depth of data, high-qual­ity analy­sis, cu­ra­tion, and la­bel­ing to re­veal mean­ing­ful, ac­tion­able in­sights

Learn more

Secure your AI jour­ney and elim­i­nate vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties be­fore at­tacks hap­pen — so you can in­no­vate with con­fi­dence

Learn more

Shaping the fu­ture of cy­ber­se­cu­rity through AI in­no­va­tion, reg­u­la­tory lead­er­ship, and trusted stan­dards

Learn more

Defend against na­tion-state threats, ac­cel­er­ate com­pli­ance, and se­cure hy­brid en­vi­ron­ments with AI-driven se­cu­rity

Learn more

Bolster your dig­i­tal se­cu­rity and pri­vacy with cy­ber in­sur­ance

Learn more

Outsmart cy­ber threats by prepar­ing with an Incident Response Plan

Learn more

How Trend can help es­tab­lish el­i­gi­bil­ity with mul­ti­ple ca­pa­bil­i­ties

Learn more

Stop threats with easy-to-use so­lu­tions de­signed for your grow­ing busi­ness

Learn more

Extend your team with trusted 24/7 cy­ber­se­cu­rity ex­perts to pre­dict, pre­vent, and man­age breaches.

Learn more

Augment threat de­tec­tion with ex­pertly man­aged de­tec­tion and re­sponse (MDR) for email, end­points, servers, cloud work­loads, and net­works

Learn more

Our trusted ex­perts are on call whether you’re ex­pe­ri­enc­ing a breach or look­ing to proac­tively im­prove your IR plans

Learn more

Stop breaches with the best re­sponse and de­tec­tion tech­nol­ogy on the mar­ket and re­duce clients’ down­time and claim costs

Learn more

Run real-world at­tack sce­nar­ios to build readi­ness and for­tify your de­fenses

Learn more

Grow your busi­ness and pro­tect your cus­tomers with the best-in-class com­plete, mul­ti­lay­ered se­cu­rity

Learn more

Stand out to cus­tomers with com­pe­tency en­dorse­ments that show­case your ex­per­tise

Learn more

Deliver proac­tive se­cu­rity ser­vices from a sin­gle, part­ner-cen­tric se­cu­rity plat­form built for MSPs, MSSPs, and DFIR teams

Learn more

We work with the best to help you op­ti­mize per­for­mance and value

Learn more

Discover re­sources de­signed to ac­cel­er­ate your busi­ness’s growth and en­hance your ca­pa­bil­i­ties as a Trend Micro part­ner

Learn more

Accelerate your learn­ing with Trend Campus, an easy-to-use ed­u­ca­tion plat­form that of­fers per­son­al­ized tech­ni­cal guid­ance

Learn more

Access col­lab­o­ra­tive ser­vices de­signed to help you show­case the value of Trend Vision One™ and grow your busi­ness

Learn more

Locate a part­ner from whom you can pur­chase Trend Micro so­lu­tions

Learn more

Real-world sto­ries and case stud­ies of how global cus­tomers use Trend to pre­dict, pre­vent, de­tect, and re­spond to threats

Learn more

See how cy­ber re­silience led to mea­sur­able im­pact, smarter de­fense, and sus­tained per­for­mance.

Learn more

Hear di­rectly from our users. Their in­sights shape our so­lu­tions and drive con­tin­u­ous im­prove­ment.

Learn more

Meet the peo­ple be­hind the pro­tec­tion — our team, cus­tomers, and im­proved dig­i­tal well-be­ing.

Learn more

Crowdstrike pro­vides ef­fec­tive cy­ber­se­cu­rity through its cloud-na­tive plat­form, but its pric­ing may stretch bud­gets, es­pe­cially for or­ga­ni­za­tions seek­ing cost-ef­fec­tive scal­a­bil­ity through a true sin­gle plat­form

Let’s go

Microsoft of­fers a foun­da­tional layer of pro­tec­tion, yet it of­ten re­quires sup­ple­men­tal so­lu­tions to fully ad­dress cus­tomers’ se­cu­rity prob­lems

Let’s go

Palo Alto Networks de­liv­ers ad­vanced cy­ber­se­cu­rity so­lu­tions, but nav­i­gat­ing its com­pre­hen­sive suite can be com­plex and un­lock­ing all ca­pa­bil­i­ties re­quires sig­nif­i­cant in­vest­ment

Let’s go

Under Attack?

Content has been added to your Folio

The Vercel Breach: OAuth Supply Chain Attack Exposes the Hidden Risk in Platform Environment Variables

An OAuth sup­ply chain com­pro­mise at Vercel ex­posed how trusted third party apps and plat­form en­vi­ron­ment vari­ables can by­pass tra­di­tional de­fenses and am­plify blast ra­dius. This ar­ti­cle ex­am­ines the at­tack chain, un­der­ly­ing de­sign trade­offs, and what it re­veals about mod­ern PaaS and soft­ware sup­ply chain risk.

A com­pro­mised third‑party OAuth ap­pli­ca­tion en­abled long‑lived, pass­word‑in­de­pen­dent ac­cess to Vercel’s in­ter­nal sys­tems, demon­strat­ing how OAuth trust re­la­tion­ships can by­pass tra­di­tional perime­ter de­fenses.

The im­pact was am­pli­fied by Vercel’s en­vi­ron­ment vari­able model, where cre­den­tials not ex­plic­itly marked as sen­si­tive were read­able with in­ter­nal ac­cess - mean­ing that for any team whose ac­cess was com­pro­mised, non-sen­si­tive en­vi­ron­ment vari­ables were ex­posed with­out ad­di­tional con­trols.

This in­ci­dent fits a broader 2026 con­ver­gence pat­tern (LiteLLM, Axios) in which at­tack­ers con­sis­tently tar­get de­vel­oper‑stored cre­den­tials across CI/CD, pack­age reg­istries, OAuth in­te­gra­tions, and de­ploy­ment plat­forms.

Effective de­fense re­quires ar­chi­tec­tural change: treat­ing OAuth apps as third‑party ven­dors, elim­i­nat­ing long‑lived plat­form se­crets, and de­sign­ing for the as­sump­tion of provider‑side com­pro­mise.

...

Read the original on www.trendmicro.com »

10 286 shares, 14 trendiness

MNT Reform

MNT Reform is an open hard­ware lap­top, de­signed and as­sem­bled in Berlin, Germany.

2023.04.17: mnt re­form #000120 is now be­ing of­fered as a loaner by sdf.org.

The track­ball can press against the screen when the lid is closed, caus­ing a small mark to ap­pear on the screen.

Lid, screen bezel, key­board frame, and wrist rest are made from milled alu­minium. Side pan­els and trans­par­ent bot­tom panel are made from acrylic.

Screws in the LCD bezel are not cov­ered, and over time the one in the cen­ter can start to rub the paint off of the wrist rest.

My friend kindly sent me a pair of metal re­place­ment side pan­els. First I tried paint­ing them with a paint brush and a bot­tle of Vanta Black. This flaked off eas­ily, so I sanded them down and re­painted them with black spray­paint (satin fin­ish). Managed to chip that as well dur­ing in­stal­la­tion. I don’t know what I’m do­ing.

2022.03.03 Update: MNT has now made avail­able steel re­place­ment side pan­els.

2022.04.27 Update: I ended up just stretch­ing the orig­i­nal molex an­tenna down un­der the track­ball, which im­proved re­cep­tion even more than buy­ing an ex­pen­sive new an­tenna. Because of its shape and the ori­en­ta­tion of its ca­bles, the Laird an­tenna would­n’t quite reach.

io­gear gwu637 eth­er­net to wifi n adapter - for op­er­at­ing sys­tems where wifi does­n’t (yet) work

piña­tex sleeve - note: pull tabs broke off in the first week

2022.02.22 Update: MNT sent me a re­place­ment sleeve with new, all-metal zip­per pulls that are now stan­dard equip­ment on the sleeve.

2022.07.16 Update: One of the all-metal zip­per pulls shat­tered as I tried to un­zip the sleeve.

mbk-col­ors: 1u and 1.5u hom­ing - re­place­ment key caps, some with raised edges to help with ac­cli­mat­ing to the non-stan­dard key­board lay­out

void linux -

sd­card im­age (does not boot on my ma­chine)

By de­fault, the speaker out­put of MNT Reform is a bit quiet, and

chang­ing the vol­ume with PulseAudio won’t dra­mat­i­cally change it.

There’s one more knob you can turn up that is only ac­ces­si­ble via

ALSA.

Open a Terminal and type al­samixer. Then press F6 and se­lect

the wm8960-au­dio card. Navigate with Cursor keys to the Playback

slider and turn it up

Well, there is no wm8960-au­dio listed on my sys­tem, only (default). And Master is al­ready cranked to 100. Investigating, I no­ticed:

sl@re­form:~$ dmesg | grep 8960

[ 3.613559] wm8960 2-001a: Failed to is­sue re­set

Usually a re­boot gets the au­dio go­ing for me if I see failed to is­sue

re­set (happens on boot­ing from power off). Lukas spec­u­lates on a fix

here[1] and an­other per­son[2] pro­vided this line in or­der to re­bind the

de­vice with­out a re­boot:

echo 2-001a > /sys/bus/i2c/drivers/wm8960/bind

I was able to repli­cate the is­sue and test the above line out just

now. I had to sudo su” first. Then the au­dio de­vice showed up in

al­samixer again just fine.

This worked for me, as well.

Update 2022.06.20: After nu­mer­ous up­dates, sound no longer works for me in Alpine Linux.

echo 0 > /sys/class/leds/ath9k-phy0/brightness # needs root per­mis­sions

...

Read the original on mnt.stanleylieber.com »

To add this web app to your iOS home screen tap the share button and select "Add to the Home Screen".

10HN is also available as an iOS App

If you visit 10HN only rarely, check out the the best articles from the past week.

If you like 10HN please leave feedback and share

Visit pancik.com for more.