I’m sceptical about this idea but, to give it full credit, it’s a custom piece of hardware that would presumably be more accurate than previous software-only attempts. Maybe it will actually work this time, idk, although I still don’t really see the point.

You’re getting a negative reaction from others but I share this feedback in good faith: I don’t understand what problem your product is supposed to solve.

Yeah I guess the cryptographic stuff sounds vaguely impressive although it’s been a long time since I had to think about cryptography in detail. But what is this _for_? I’m going to buy an expensive keyboard so that I can send messages to someone and they’ll know it’s really me – but it has to be someone who a) doesn’t trust me or any of our existing communication channels and b) cares enough to verify using this weird software? Oh and it’s important they know I sent it from a particular device out of the many I could be using?

Who is that person? What would I be sending them? What is the scenario where we would both need this?

Also the server can’t read the message but the decryption key is in the URL? So anyone with the URL can still read it? Then why even bother encrypting it?

Maybe this is one of those cases where I’m so far outside your target market that it was never supposed to make sense to me but I feel like I’m missing something here. Or maybe you need to work on your elevator pitch.

Just sharing my honest reaction.

It’s a product for people who need help telling whether text was written by AI.

Maybe they deliberately write it like that, to filter out people who aren’t the target market?

From their “how it works” page:

> The server stores an encrypted blob it can't decrypt. We couldn't read your messages even if we wanted to. That's not a policy — it's math.

If you can’t tell that this is AI slop then maybe KeyWitness does solve a real problem after all.

None of that matters if the model is worse. I say this as someone who uses both Claude Code and Codex all day every day — I agree with others in this thread that CC has much better UX and evolves faster, but I still use Codex more often because it's simply the better coder. Everything else is a distant second to model quality.

What kind of tasks are you having success with on codex? I’ve had the opposite experience. I’ll occasional compare solutions between the latest opus and codex with codex on x-high thinking. Sometimes I do get solution from codex that is impressive because it discovered an edge case that Claude missed.

I did notice that codex - like Claude - is now better about auto delegating to agents for keeping the context focused and agents in parallel.

Do we know what the other emergency was? All the reporting I've seen has been very vague on this.

United aircraft did a high speed abort (80+ knots) and afterwards, fumes from hot brakes were entering the back of the cabin. (Not uncommon.)

Source: Mentour Pilot. https://www.youtube.com/live/Bb4CcoK0KLM

Any idea why they aborted??

Unrelated United aborted takeoff, as well as reported some odors in the cabin from the flight attendants.

Why not both? If it paid better then more people would apply to ATC school.

ATC positions already have a very low chance of even getting a spot in ATC school. There are tons of applicants for every opening.

It's even infecting the highest levels of government:

https://www.pimlicojournal.co.uk/p/mps-are-almost-certainly-...

> UK where cost of energy was super high

“Was”?

Probably missing 'already', that's how I understood the sentence.

Not that I’m going to do it myself, but what’s to stop a non-black person from signing up? Do you verify people’s identities?

I assume it's mostly the same thing that keeps non-Catholics from taking communion at Catholic mass.

Yes, as far as i know it's an honest self-report kind of thing.

tasteless wafers?

In the sense that there's no upside to violating the norm, yeah, that too.

Note that I'm not a blacksky member, just someone involved in the greater atproto space so my understanding of the process is likely not perfect.

But AFAIK the way blacksky operates is that they assume good faith when new users join. If it becomes obvious that you are not black then you will likely get reported or directly hit by moderation action and they will ask you to verify your identity at some level.

I think it's something along the lines of "send a photograph that would be non-trivial to fake". Not necessarily forcing you to dox yourself but requiring that you provide some level of evidence that's visibly resistant to AI/tampering. Now I have no idea the extent to which they do this to be entirely honest but I do know they don't mess around with people doing "digital blackface".

I'm not sure how well that moderation approach will scale at large but given they are a community that has carved out their own niche and not a corp just blindly driving to scale, I doubt they'll see the strain that the greater bluesky and atproto have experienced with moderation struggles at scale. And given all decisions around policy and moderation rules are decided by the Blacksky People's Assembly, as the community evolves participants can participate in governance and help craft the process if they are dissatisfied.

What does it mean to be “obviously not black” in a digital context?

i.e. it becomes clear you are using it as a sockpuppet account (some users have been caught trying to do this), outright saying you aren't black, etc.

Like if you aren't being a niche internet celebrity and aren't trying to play main character on the internet it's unlikely you'd get caught unless you were particularly stupid but that's also kinda part of the point. It's a community and people in that community know each other both online and IRL. It'd be pretty hard to be involved in the community without leaving behind an evidence trail of you blatantly lying about who you are.

I don't exactly know either, but it's probably some sort of lax verification measure like a selfie.

Don't need extreme measures to keep bad actors out if you're able and willing to throw out anyone who obviously doesn't intend on playing nice.