> > It's not the weed wacker's fault or even the dog's fault when someone got hurt, it's the fault of the guy who put a weed wacker on a dog and let it run wild.
> The difference is volume. They spent hundreds of billions of tokens on these agents. If you put "a million weed whackers on dog backs" you would see the difference.
So put one weed whacker on one dog, you're to blame. Put a million weed whackers on a million dogs backs and ... you're still to blame? Arguably even more so?
You provide a DTLS to clear-text proxy service, for applications where the client supports DTLS, but the server does not (or vice versa)?
Yeah, why did you build this? It's unclear what the value proposition is, paying for a MitM proxy. It effectively means it cannot be used with secrets, without trusting y'all to not be snooping?
Your summary is about right, but the use case is simply not wanting to run always-on servers around the world (we have anycast IPs backed by handlers around the world). So it's convenience and scale first, and wanting to build with event-driven architectures second.
Yes, your point on security is correct. Since our service terminates the DTLS connection we could see the cleartext (just as any gateway service does, like AWS API Gateway, etc.). We don't touch it except as strictly needed to pass it to the configured integrations.
EDIT: FWIW, using a plain UDP handler you could implement DTLS handling that runs in your control, in which case payloads would be opaque to us. That's a bit of an effort, though. We were asked for this, so we built it.
100% easily scriptable. Just like running an (S)FTP server is easy, and Dropbox is not at all disruptive.
Except you're overestimating the barrier to entry of scripting for the overwhelming majority of people. OpenClaw is not disruptive because it does something that wasn't possible before, it's disruptive because it enables more people to do the thing that was limited to fewer people.
Where I get confused is why my techie friends are all going bananas over claws... they all know how to script already, and are crying about burning through multiple $200 claude subscriptions a month, filtering email. This I can't understand.
There's something about circles of control in this, that makes the difference. If I publish information about myself, that's about me, and it's in my control.
If someone else shares information about me, without my consent, and someone uses that to nose in on me, that feels creepy and problematic.
If you find that concerning, I recommend asking Claude or Codex to analyze all your HN comments and build a profile of you (I recommend that to everyone, not trying to single you out btw.) It takes about 20 minutes. It was eye opening and somewhat unsettling how accurate it was when I ran it on my own data. Even worse, there’s NO way to delete your old HN comments.
Well at the risk of flouting HN guidelines, I went to Grok and did exactly that. Grok's profiling seems thoroughly fact-based, and doesn't pull any punches.
Indeed. They forked Xbox Media Center back in the day, to produce a Mac version when none existed.
Then they became a client/server model.
They are supposed to provide the source code for Plex Transcoder, since that's a modified ffmpeg build. In practice, the version they share is not up to date with the version they ship.
Infuse is another $100 license to sync watch history, when I already paid $100 for Plex a while ago (with the primary driver being 'sync watch history', which is the basic feature Plex provides).
Paying more money to use a different product, and then expecting all of my users to do the same, is a big hill to climb.
> The difference is volume. They spent hundreds of billions of tokens on these agents. If you put "a million weed whackers on dog backs" you would see the difference.
So put one weed whacker on one dog, you're to blame. Put a million weed whackers on a million dogs backs and ... you're still to blame? Arguably even more so?
reply