Flipper zero themselves try to present the flipper zero as a device that "hacks things with a button press".

And they love the free advertising they get along the same lines by youtubers desperate for clicks.

Ultimately it just sells more devices. The flipper zero can't "hack" anything. It can only be used as a tool to perform hacking, by a skilled individual who is doing all the work/discovering an exploit.

No it's not.

We've been able to take a price sticker off one object and put it onto another for a very, very long time.

It's not really a new issue and current law should already cater for it.

kind of a circular argument though? the reasonable definition of "unsecured" is "stuff you can't muck about with". That might change over time as attacks/exploits are developed though.

Influencers gonna influence.

That's just you, bud.

Not your buddy, pal. ;3

Not your pal, friend

Not with tools + supporting (traditional) code.

Just as a human would use a task list app or a notepad to keep track of which tasks need to be done so can a model.

You can even have a mechanism for it to look at each task with a "clear head" (empty context) with the ability to "remember" previous task execution (via embedding the reasoning/output) in case parts were useful.

The article makes it seem like the author expected this without emptying context in between, which does not yet exist (actually I'm behind on playing with Opus 4.7, the Anthropic claim seems to be that longer sessions are ok now - would be interested to hear results from anyone who has).

That is probably the next step, and in practice it is much of what sub-agents already provide: a kind of tabula rasa. Context is not always an advantage. Sometimes it becomes the problem.

In long editing sessions with multiple iterations, the context can accumulate stale information, and that actively hurts model performance. Compaction is one way to deal with that. It strips out material that should be re-read from disk instead of being carried forward.

A concrete example is iterative file editing with Codex. I rewrite parts of a file so they actually work and match the project’s style. Then Codex changes the code back to the version still sitting in its context. It does not stop to consider that, if an external edit was made, that edit is probably important.

I have the same experience of reversing intentional steps I've made, but with Claude Code. I find that committing a change that I want to version control seems to stop that behaviour.

Long context as disadvantage is pretty well discussed, and agent-native compaction has been inferior to having it intentionally build the documentation that I want it to use. So far this has been my LLM-coding superpower. There are also a few products whose entire purpose is to provide structure that overcomes compaction shortcomings.

When Geoff Huntley said that Claude Code's "Ralph loop" didn't meet his standards ("this aint it") the major bone of contention as far as I can see was that it ran subagents in a loop inside Claude Code with native compaction; as opposed to completely empty context.

I do see hints that improving compaction is a major area of work for agent-makers. I'm not certain where my advantage goes at that point.

Eh I feel like the memory bus width thing was more a case of binning memory controllers and the like.

Designing a part with a wide bus and putting the traces down on the board is what I would expect to be the easy part these days (surely).

But yield, yield comes for us all.

Standing underneath a doorframe is also advisable.

I'm pretty sure that is advice from the last millennium that is no longer taught.

I suppose it must be dependent on country.

I'm a kiwi and that's what I was taught. We're also ring of fire dwellers.

Specifically, the two reasons that it's no longer taught is that 1) rushing to get under a doorframe caused accidents 2) doorframes are no longer reinforced the way they used to be.

Eh honestly I would always recommend someone just buy a bambu a1 mini for like 150£ and keep it around for odds and ends It's basically at the point where it's plug and play.

But then again some people can't reason their way out of a paper bag. Like people who struggle to put together a computer...yes, the green colored square shaped plug goes in the green coloured square shaped socket! Wow.

Look at nordic chips. They were super smol even when I was using em almost a decade ago. Wsclp are crazy smol.

Executives of making shitloads of money off other people's hard work.

Executive layer is defunct.