It has a 2-part process. First, it does a simple depencency check against Google's OSV, then there's a supply chain check that requires an AI key. This secondary check uses code signature checks to identify files that have "risky" behavior (e.g. eval, lots of encoded code etc) and passes that to an AI to identify whether it's likely malicious code hidden behind the "risky" behavior.
I don't know why but I find performance on c#/.net be several generations behind. Sometimes right ofc but my general experience is if you pull the generation slot machine in just about any other language it will work better. I regularly do python, typescript, ruby and rust with a better experience. It's even hard to find benchmarks where csharp is included.
Spontaneously I would like a protocol between agents and the clients and that's exactly what agentclientprotocol.com is. I wonder if you shuffle acp over https is it then similar to sandbox api used here?
Yes. We want to support ACP. They have a spec for HTTP transport in the works, but there is nothing public on it. Trying to backchannel to the right folks.
I am thinking harder than ever due to vibe coding. How will markets shift? What will be in demand? How will the consumer side adapt? How do we position? Predicting the future is a hard problem... The thinker in me is working relentlessly since December. At least for me the thinker loves an existential crisis like no other.
I had a similar experience. However I gave up before being able to pay. Repeated the story two or three times. This was work for a medium sized Corp and in the end we didn't even give gemini a chance because of this (performance was sufficiently good with competing providers) . Really hope they up their UX.
Alternatives and innovation in this space are greatly appreciated! I run Linux and Windows so I keep my eyes fixed on https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/pull/12062#issuecommen... - - zed is a cross platform, gpu rendered, rust-based editor.. Jupyter support should arrive soonish
One red flag should be that nowhere in this news article is the reader made aware of the exact nature of the manipulated images or their implications. If you go to the linked pubpeer review page you'll find why -- it's much less dramatic and all the findings were also replicated following this inquiry to show that any image alteration, that might have been made for editorial purposes, does not affect conclusions....
Drama drama drama, feed the people more drama... sigh
>One red flag should be that nowhere in this news article is the reader made aware of the exact nature of the manipulated images or their implications.
Because that was covered in detail when the manipulations were first reported and those articles are linked to in the above article. This is just reporting on the resulting retraction two years after that initial report.
>it's much less dramatic and all the findings were also replicated following this inquiry to show that any image alteration, that might have been made for editorial purposes, does not affect conclusions
Other groups had issues replicating the results with the same oligomer (often just chalked up to its instability), it's not like someone just happened to stumble upon these manipulations casually. This retraction only happened because Nature rejected the author's attempt to publish a correction. This whole thing is a black mark on Nature's record as well so if it really was just some minor change to make a picture look prettier for publishing purposes, I doubt they would have insisted on this action
“All the findings were replicated” is a claim by the accused, which is disputed by the researcher who originally found the issues, and he detailed all the contradicting claims right in that thread https://pubpeer.com/publications/8FF7E6996524B73ACB4A9EF5C0A.... Image alteration “that might have been made for editorial purposes” is a laughable euphemism for fraud, even the accused didn’t dare to use that phrasing. Not sure what’s in it for you to seriously misrepresent scientific fraud.
I disagree with this assessment. If Bik sees "shockingly blatant" copying, it's almost certain the author (or one of the authors) specifically, with intent, committed fraud. The other main explanation is incompetence (it's not impossible to misattribute a specific figure if your data handling is poor).
""" The tool will:
"""