Is the focus on how dangerous mcp capabilities are a way to legitimize why they have been slow to adopt the mcp protocol? Or that they have internally scrapped their own response and finally caved to something that ideally would be a more security focused standard?
I'm just using claude-code on termux on my s42 ultra with some mcp tools i built in rust - which thus runs on aarch64-linux-android. Very handy to get rust analyzer, webdriver, github cli etc on your phone, so i can get some small stuff done during commute.
I started to work on a rust version, always thought more mcp / a2a plumbing should be done in rust instead of python/js. https://github.com/EmilLindfors/a2a-rs
One of the main problems is the commoditization of salmon and race toward cheapest feed ingredients just like the other animal proteins such as cattle, poultry and pork. Its just that Salomon need marine epa and dha omega-3 oils and proteins while not being able to process carbs that well. There are promising alternatives but they have a hard time to compete since you cant carry the cost to the consumers. Ie few are willing to pay extra to get a Salomon fed with insect protein and gmo oil from plants or algae. Switching feed ingredients also have their own impacts that need to be taken into account.
Yes there are large farmers in Norway that are using black soldier fly protein meal and its being produced in large scale in e.g. NL and France. But so far only a fraction of the feed has been replaced due to cost and availability of the meal. Consumers typically think insects are icky and would rather not have their food eating insects even if its their natural diet. There are also great progress on terrestrial epa and dha omega-3 in plant oils but its gmo so again people dont want it
I use it — because I am writing a rust program, and want to use ffmpeg functionality.
What’s the alternative? I could wrap the C API, and then try to make a nice rust interface from that, but then that’s exactly what this package does, so I don’t want to repeat the work.
I often just exec ffmpeg from whatever language I'm using (as a command line thing). Not very ergonomic, but the nice thing is that it's 1:1 with all examples and other uses of ffmpeg. But I guess it depends on how deep into ffmpeg you're doing stuff. Mine is mostly to point it at doing something non advanced with a file and that's it.
Basically no one rewrites FFmpeg in recent years, in any language, at least not in the open source scene (and judging from the known usage of FFmpeg in world’s premier providers of multimedia content, probably not in the commercial scene either). It’s both too good and too daunting.
Bah, don't give them ideas!
Honestly, codecs are a worrying target for supply chain attacks because they're complex and use a lot of memory-unsafe code. Just look at all the image format attacks throughout history (a memorable recent one being the libwebp vulnerability.)
I’m talking about the underlying libav*. There are plenty of frontends in all sorts of languages, although ffmpeg(1) itself is obviously the most versatile. Also, CLI UX is highly subjective (hence all the different frontends by people with differing opinions), I personally find it more than acceptable for the immense complexity it encapsulates.
I'd say the fact that I can pass in multiple input sources, apply a complex chain of filters, set detailed rendering options, set output parameters, and have it all work flawlessly, and do all of the above in a single command line with consistent syntax, makes "too good" a very accurate description of the FFMpeg CLI.
I used this wrapper to implement an opening and ending detection tool for “fun” [1].
However, it seems that many programs opt to instead shell out to the ffmpeg CLI. I think it’s usually simpler than linking against the library and to avoid licensing issues. But there are some cases where the CLI doesn’t cut it.
These are shallow arguments built on the good old techno-optimist view that technology will solve all our problems by perfecting resource extraction.
"With novel technologies like precision fermentation and vertical farming, we could further shrink our “foodprint” by at least three quarters, thus freeing up more space for nature to flourish."
That is just silly speculation. For example, vertical farming may just be a vehicle for impact investors in silicon valley to diversity their portfolio into the new hot mega trend of saving the planet.
Its hard to justify a high-tech intensive verticle potato farm as net effective than just having half the mouths to feed from a traditional potato field.
This is a good example of a very narrow human centric view that captures why its bad to try to maximize for particular made up metrics, such as human utility. It also a wonderfully hare brained view of technolocial innovation that disregards the dark sides, material input, or externalities at all.
Certainly, it was just more of a general criticism toward such a view, as leading to long term degradation of the world. I totally get how humans would always protitize humanity first, but in the long term we have some issues such as overfishing, global warming, biodiversity loss etc. as a result. But the esiest would of course to not belive in thos issues, and have cool toys
Or we can assume that the state of the world before humans was a state that we have deviated from though human agency, and it is reasonable to remedy some of that irreversible trajectory would be a good cause that some other intelligent species could undertake after we're gone.
The first known extinction event was caused by cyanobacteria that released vast amounts oxygen (highly toxic chemical) into the atmosphere. It killed most of the anaerobic life, clearly "deviating from the previous state of the world". The time has come to "remedy some of that irreversible trajectory".
The whole notion that the "current trajectory" is somehow objectively bad is ridiculous. It may be bad for humans though.
I think you can define degradation. I can make objective claims that less biodiversity is worse than more biodiversity and use it to measure degradation without humans around. I can measure this degradation in planets without humans or model out the degradation in a future where humans are extinct, and call certain situations objectively worse than others under that yardstick.
Maybe I misunderstood because it seems you're claiming if there's no humans around it's impossible to model any phenomena, but we possess abstract thought to make up those situations and define things like degradation in the absence of humans.
> I can make objective claims that less biodiversity is worse than more biodiversity and use it to measure degradation without humans around.
While the amount of biodiversity can be measured objectively, the notion of it being "good" is completely made up. You need humans to judge what's "good" and which means that for any "good" kind of future humans are essential and are more important than say biodiversity.
If biodiversity is good (and I say it is, but it’s a human judgement), then human civilization is also good, and for the same reason: it represents life, complexity, activity, and progress.
What you described is still human centric. Nature has survived several extinction level events and I’m sure it will survive more.
If humanity changes the current environment enough, then it will no longer be the once ideal environment to that continues to sustain humanity indefinitely.
Going on a tangent, a lot of environmentalists have a marketing problem.
Sure! On the other hand, if we kill ourselves off before that happens, for example by making the planet unlivable for humans, then that chance is also gone. Getting to that level of technological advancement is a marathon, not a sprint.
As i replied to the sibling comment, coming from another species perspective it would be reasonable to assume that a world optimized to fulfill the need of another species, such as humans would be seen as negative. It's not like they can enact their discontent, so i would argue we have to account for other species as well when we remodel the natural world.
Evolutionary adaptation takes a while, so its not nice to change things fast.
> As a human, I have a human-centric mindset. I don’t want to live in the forest with rain filling up my mud floor. I like nice things.
I think the whole discussion is about which amount of humans on this planet would maximize the probability of having nice things for each individual. Certainly it would be hard for you to have nice things when there is only a million humans on Earth, but probably even more so if there is a trillion of them around.
There would be some significant tradeoffs necessary for maintaining a trillion people population on Earth no matter the energy cost. Even if you assume cheap and abundant cold fusion energy source, living in mcmansion and eating avocado toasts with wild salmon is likely out of the question.
I don't think it's the case. If you have truly free energy then transformation of matter in whatever you want it to be becomes a purely technological question.
And in any case, having spaceships and no avocado is much better than the inverse.
> I don't think it's the case. If you have truly free energy then transformation of matter in whatever you want it to be becomes a purely technological question.
Some purely technological problems are hard to solve. There is already a market for (very expensive) meat substitutes and they taste like crap. If you are talking about some sci-fi "replicator" tech that will just "synthesize" you and avocado, then I'm not sure how achievable that is in short or medium-term irrespective to energy prices.
> And in any case, having spaceships and no avocado is much better than the inverse.
Much better for whom? OP said they like "nice things". I would also prefer avocados to spaceships since I'm not that interested in space travel without FTL.
> There is already a market for (very expensive) meat substitutes and they taste like crap.
Impossible is pretty decent tasting for ground beef substitute, IMO. The pricing is currently not competitive or inline with its utility value, but I could see that changing much faster than any colonize-space or make earth pleasant for 12 billion people projects.
> Much better for whom? OP said they like "nice things". I would also prefer avocados to spaceships since I'm not that interested in space travel without FTL.
For humans and for avocados. The sun is doomed and so are they, unless we manage to scale our available energy by many orders of magnitude.
As a human I like nice things too. But increasing human population even more by decreasing animal diversity I see as a bigger threat to livability on earth.
> Instead, I’m going to argue that a larger population is better for every individual—that there are selfish reasons to want more humans.
I'd say yes, and that this person assumes we are all economists. The 'selfish' part also assumes that economy-boosting reasons for wanting more humans is what would make us indiidually happy
