It's not so simple. They was actually "interviewed" by these guys last week.

The "recruiter" asks the candidate to clone a GitHub project and open it using Cursor. It doesn't look like you're running anything. You're just opening a project file.

The Cursor installation is legit (downloaded from the official location) and the GitHub repository is 99% source-code so it doesn't look harmful. The problem is that the repository contains a Cursor-specific configuration file that downloads and runs a binary when the project is opened.

These AI tools are not very smart, to say the least. In any case, luckily my antivirus blocked the operation; otherwise, I wouldn't have noticed.

I live in Quebec, Canada and I happen to agree with you 100%. I am tired of subpar "Canadian content" being shoved down our throats. If I want it, I'll pay for it.

Anthropics remains a toxic, opaque company that treats its customers with disdain. They change usage limits and terms of use regularly without informing users, banning users for life without explaining the cause.

The competitors might not be much better, but at least they seem to be more transparent. We better hope that Anthropic does not win the AI race without a change of policies.

The same approach can (and is) being done to closed-source software. This can result in more open-source software. It's just a matter of choosing what you want to tackle.

There is nothing advanced about Anthropic's mysterious model. People who have seen it have reported it produces tons of junk vulnerabilities that are not realistic to exploit. Plus, they recently intentionally dumbed-down their public models to make Mythos look amazing in comparison when they got public. This is just PR bullshit.

New math isn't the problem -- new math was never the problem. Standards are the problem.

You do realize the young people aren't choosing their own education, right? Its the previous generations making those changes.

You're likely falling into the logical thinking word problem portion of those students.

I have a hard time seeing how this could possibly succeed as well. Yes, it feels unfair to the consumer, but also yes the seller agreed to it in exchange for being on such a huge platform.
Should we make such contracts illegal? yes. Are they already? no.

You mean Andy right? Since he replaced Bezos as CEO a while back...

Wow. I'm amazed anyone who's spent any time looking into the lives of people in Europe and Asia could believe this. Oh wait, you've never done that, have you?

Please keep sharing anything you observe as it happens.

The last thing any of us should want is for OpenAI to take over from Google.

I really don't understand this decision that Google should be broken up as though its 'monopoly' in search isn't entirely based on skill and talent. But if we *are* going to force companies to break up into components, can we make sure new monoliths aren't just created as a result?

This, entirely this.