About a year ago a Polish rail equipment supplier brought a lawsuit over a locomotive because it was serviced by a third-party, and the service was enabled by jailbreaking software in the locomotive.
Surveillance tech in products doesn't necessarily imply grey zone warfare. But that doesn't make it a good thing either.
I'm not sure this comment does justice to the situation.
Poland put out a separate bid for manufacturing and servicing of their locomotives and one company won the manufacturing bid while another won the servicing bid.
The servicing company was unable to get the trains into working order and after hiring hackers accused the manufactoring company of bricking the software on purpose by including geo-fences where the trains would no longer work after arriving at the servicing company's property.
Perhaps the interesting part to me was Dragon Sector's (the hackers) claims that the software needs to be blessed so although they discovered problems they never changed anything because they don't have the authority to bless it and heavily imply that the fact that the manufactoring company is changing the software at will is illegal.
The changes by the manufactoring company had an (undisclosed) activation sequence added to it so you didn't need to modify the software in order to get the train working so the servicing company never actually modified the software.
The jailbreak was necessary because Polish supplier hardcoded location of their service shop and added code which makes train inoperative if serviced elsewhere.
Even with obviously ridiculous valuations, being a short means thinking you're smarter than the market, and you can time it, and you are smarter enough that a structurally disadvantaged investment is a good idea.
What that you've been paying for most of it while the rest of us freeload? You should be proud. In Britain the army is the smallest it's ever been. It's time Europe takes their military obligations seriously.
America would pay a pretty high price were Russia to dominate Europe. That's a fair point regarding the UK. Poland has always understood the assignment, and this year Germany got on board.
Coding agents are useful and good and real products because when they screw up, things stop working almost always before they can do damage. Coding agents are flawed in ways that existing tools are good at catching, never mind the more obvious build and runtime errors.
Letting AI write your emails and create your P&L and cash flow projections doesn't have to run the gauntlet of tools that were created to stop flawed humans from creating bad code.
Fair. I've been using the coding agent in Android Studio Canary to do exploratory code in Dart/Flutter and using ATProto. Low stakes, but higher productivity is a significant benefit. It's a daily surprise how brilliant it is it's some things and how abysmal at others.
Another problem is that the AI may try to fudge the numbers to mask its mistakes so they look like they all add up while the rot is hidden away. Just like it tries to manipulate the unit tests so they pass without fixing the _actual_ bug. I've seen it happen.
The first assembler I had to look at was PDP-11 code. 68k is kind of like a 32 bit PDP-11, easy to see what's happening. One of my very first paid tech jobs was maintaining an ST506 driver written in 68k asm by game hackers using self modifying code for no specific reason other than that's how they roll.
In the current market, the professional investors are looking for an excuse to run to the exits. The professional investors are confident they will get there before the retail investors.
reply