Just use blocking/non-blocking.

The issue with nitpicks: different reviewers have different definitions of what a "nit" is.

This is a delightful reverse turkey graph (each day before Thanksgiving, the turkey has increasing confidence).

GitLab employee here. We have completed the move away from Gollum years ago (see https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/2381).

It looks like that doc https://docs.gitlab.com/development/wikis/ was outdated - since fixed to no longer mention Gollum.

If anyone is interested in this - checkout Richard Behiel's video on this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj_GSBaUE1o

It is fantastically long, but still fascinating !

I think you are ascribing too much into this. If he does not believe anything then there will be nothing to write about. It looks like he does not believe in _your_ ideals - that does not make it nihilism though.

Compiler is the more apt analogy to a mechanical loom.

An LLM is more like outsourcing to a consultancy. Results may vary.

What protection do people use when enabling an LLM to run `bash` on your machine ? Do you run it in a Docker container / LXC boundary ? `chroot` ?

The blog post in question is on the site for Sketch, which appears to use Docker containers. That said, I use Claude Code, which just uses unsandboxed commands with manual approval.

What's your concern? An accident or an attacker? For accidents, I use git and backups and develop in a devcontainer. For an attacker, bash just seems like an ineffective attack vector; I would be more worried about instructing the agent to write a reverse shell directly into the code.

Bourne-Again SHell is a shell. The "reverse" part is just about network minutiae. /bin/sh is more portable so that's what you'd typically put in your shellcode but /bin/bash or /usr/bin/dash would likely work just as well.

I.e. exposing any of these on a public network is the main target to get a foothold in a non-public network or a computer. As soon as you have that access you can start renting out CPU cycles or use it for distributed hash cracking or DoS-campaigns. It's simpler than injecting your own code and using that as a shell.

Asking a few of my small local models for Forth-like interpreters in x86 assembly they seem willing to comply and produce code so if they had access to a shell and package installation I imagine they could also inject such a payload into some process. It would be very hard to discover.

> For an attacker, bash just seems like an ineffective attack vector

All it needs to do is curl and run the actual payload.

Or even the standard "echo xxx | base64 -d" or a million other ways. How can someone say that bash is not interesting to an attacker is beyond me.

But bash isn't a key ingredient in any of these. The exact same payload could easily be insert in the project's source code, and has the benefit of being persistent. Using a bash shell to do it might be the most obvious way, sure, but shutting down bash access is such a poor defense that it isn't worth doing.

I run claude code in a podman container. It only gets access to the CWD. This comes with some downsides though, like your git config or other global configs not being available to the LLM (unless you fine tune the container, obviously).

I think you need to read the OP again. Not just the pictures at the end.

OP does not ban digital screens despite the title. They even play video games !

It's more the en-shittification of the Internet, and other media.

They allow the things that they themselves had when they were kids. They just have a fond memory of the past. Just look at the way they style their houses.

I will go one deeper. Are fields (quantum fields) even real, or just a model ?

You can go even deeper and ask what the difference between "real" and "model" even is.

Are forces real or just a model?