The major difference, here, is this is intended for multiple users (not one person). Imaging 5,000 users all using the device at the same time. The amount of memory, open file handles, network connections, etc. for many users at once adds up.

The IBM mainframe that I used at UIC in the 80s had 64 MEGA bytes of RAM and about double the users.

We knew 30 years ago that message attachments (mostly email at that time) were a huge security problem. All those binary file types to parse... what could go wrong ;)

It's good to see Apple's Lockdown mode having such success by simply disabling message attachments.

I know you're not being serious, but for anyone who may not realize that, it does more than disabling attachments. Lockdown Mode's "optional, extreme" protection substantially changes the experience of using your device. https://support.apple.com/en-us/105120

One would hope there would be some sanitization of attachments to prevent this.

I also wish there was a regular option in iOS Messages to disable link previews.

There's a ton of sanitization of attachments. It just isn't foolproof.

On iOS messages attachments are decoded in a separate, heavily restricted and sandboxed process, and the decoded sanitized results are sent back to the UI process. It just isn't perfect.

If the main concern is preventing an LLM from taking some action (sending emails, text messages, adding calendar events or making phone calls), can't you just simply not allow the LLM to do that? Don't give it access.

It's not rocket science. If the LLM has no access to do those things, then it can't be tricked into doing those things.

But you want for it to be usefull and do things

Don't carry them with you. I'm old and I can tell you from experience... you can live life without holding a cellphone all the time. It's not as hard as you think.

> ... I'm old ... you can live life without holding a cellphone all the time. It's not as hard as you think.

I'm in my 50s and I don't know where this stance comes from. Sure, you physically can in the same sense that anywhere can be walked to if you're willing to walk long enough. But so many businesses and services have gone "mobile-first" or "mobile-only" to the point that if you're traveling for leisure you're doing extra work on your vacation, and if you're traveling for business you're wasting time that could be used doing your job. Just as a first order, the denizens of every airline subreddit will tell you that the most useful tool during a trip is the airline's mobile app and that's either tied with or just above or below the Flighty app if anything goes wrong.

Combine that with QR codes for everything from menus to parking, public transit tickets and fare cards that can be easily loaded into a phone instead of using a ticket machine made when we were kids, or paper maps increasingly hard to find if they're available at all, and you're looking at a real challenge. How are you going to talk to and plan with your travel partner or colleagues with payphones removed?

It's also not incumbent upon us to make the government's life easier by making our lives harder. "Just leave your phone at home" is ludicrous behavior to expect when it's the government being the intrusive jerks.

And google translate or google maps if you are traveling are very nice to have.

Sure, you can do without them, but it will be much more difficult.

Because only those two extremes exist: you either don't have a phone, or your are glued to it?

Of course not, I said nothing of the sort.

I said I’d prefer to not have a phone than be like people who are glued to their phones. I said nothing about all the people in the middle.

So do you give to your doctor your landline's nuber, and this is why they're surprised, or you don't even have that?

They're probably being nice and think you're a weirdo.

I don't btw. I admire you sticking to your principles.

In all fairness, I am a weirdo and wouldn’t have it any other way.

How often do you travel outside of the country or even outside of your state?

I’m not American. I travel a lot. It’s how I make money.

Then tge question still remains - how do you catch an Uber or communicate with people when you don’t speak their language?

Smiles, hand signals, learn basic words.

Exactly the same way I did when I drove across dozens of countries before the iPhone was invented.

What kind of phone does your grownup have?

Zing.

We’ve both been exploring the world since long before smartphones were invented. So we still do everything we want the same as always.

Do you really recommend people travel internationally in 2026 without a cellphone? I’m kind of bewildered by this suggestion. As someone who has to go between LATAM and US frequently, I have no choice but to bring my cellphone.

I went to Thailand for three weeks in November. I didn’t bring a phone or a laptop. I printed my maps, reservations, and emergency numbers. It was awesome. Don’t lock yourself into imaginary prisons.

I don't bring phones either. I go straight to the nearest mall/bazaar/market and buy one. Anyplace developed enough that you need a phone has them for sale. Anyplace where you can't find a phone has enough other people without them you can still get around. The phone gets trashed before I go through the next international border.

IMHO today is difficult to do anything without a smartphone. I hate the state of affairs, but it is just so. Anything needs an app to work. Public services in some countries requiere it. Paying, etc.

But in traveling is almost essential. GPS to navigate, search for hotels, places to eat, take fotos… yes, you could carry many devices… but seriously?! Ah btw… what about being in touch with family?

Do you remember a time people did all those things without a phone?

I’ve driven across multiple continents and many dozens of countries without a phone or gps.

Talking to locals to ask directions is half the fun, especially when I don’t speak the language. I’ve been invited to parties, weddings and more because of it.

> Talking to locals to ask directions is half the fun, especially when I don’t speak the language.

I can absolutely understand that you and many people love that. But maybe you can understand other people prefer to never feel lost, be able to translate signs, find places to eat easily, discover “must see”[1] things, take fotos, be in contact with family, all in a device which weighs 200g in my pocket. Even having it can I eventually forget it, and talk with locals… but when I want to go back to the hotel, is nice to know exactly how[2]

I am old enough that I did travel without cell:

[1] it happened to my many times (at least 3 out of the top of my head) that locals have bo idea where a museum is, or the house of X, or other things that tourists may find interesting, but locals don’t give a shit

[2] if you have been in places like Turkey or South America, you may know that taking a taxi is an interesting exercise. Sometimes they charge you wrong, sometimes they take you for a 20km ride. Having (a) gps, (b) a mean to call the police and (c) a mean to check online what should the travel cost, (d) a translator in your pocket, seems very convenient for me.

Or in other words: do you understand that now having the phone you can still do everything as you used to, asking for directions without understanding, talking with people, all, but now when you want you have a super tool? The best is: is smaller that a foto camera from those days, can take 100000 more fotos, and has 20 more functions!

People used to live without electricity, fride, email… so? Why should I not use what is avaible today?

By no means was I suggesting that everyone should live without a phone. Merely that I prefer life without one. Yes, it's inconvenient sometimes, but I decided a long time ago that convenience was not the goal of my life, experiences are.

To have the experiences I want, I need more time. To have more time, I need to go to work less. So spending less money means I get to spend time with my daughter, go snowboarding have adventures around the globe.

It turns out not having a phone is another great way to save money, and go to work less.

>It's not as hard as you think.

You're probably right, still...

I often wonder how I survived going for a random drive or even simply leaving the house from 1980 through to the advent of smart phones. Was I simply more brave and self-sufficient back then?

But then I note that there was some infrastructure and also some attitude differences back then that don't exist now.

When my car would break down in the 1980s or 1990s, typically there would be a pay phone nearby. One time in the early 90s, I just knocked on a random door and the resident let me use their land line to call a tow truck (I'm not sure anyone would let a random stranger into their home now, but maybe they still do). Breaking down in the boonies was no fun, but likely someone would come by eventually and help (or murder you, but probably help).

I was reminded recently of this when I went to park in the city in a garage that I frequently patronize only to find they had removed the payment terminal, which was replaced by a sign that said "use our app!". I have a low-data phone plan, so if I had to install their app, I would probably blow past my limit for the month. Also, there was no signal in the garage. So I just left and found another place to park (and was almost late for my appointment).

Also I don't like having to pay just to print my boarding pass at the check-in kiosk. Maybe I am not less brave but just more cheap.

> Was I simply more brave and self-sufficient back then?

Probably! A good reason to exercise those skills again

> (I'm not sure anyone would let a random stranger into their home now, but maybe they still do).

Curious what makes you think that. Perhaps as an exercise, do something that requires asking a favour of someone. You might be pleasantly surprised. Despite all the ills in society, faith can be restored be some amazing interactions with people offline

> So I just left and found another place to park

That's exactly the right response. Being late sucked but hopefully just a once off .

> Maybe I am not less brave but just more cheap.

This is honestly unsaid in a lot of these discussions! The non phone methods can be a bit more expensive. It's a good point but sometimes the difference isn't huge

The problem is that it actually gets harder. I was a holdout against cell phones when I was young. Eventually payphones started disappearing. Pre-cellphone they were everywhere. By the time I finally caved and got a cellphone I knew where there still were some in important spots around Chicago. Plus you ran into changing norms. Before cell phones people would schedule a meetup (let's meet at noon in this square then go do what we were going to do) but after cell phones it became, "just call me when you get close."

I then tried to resist smart phones and stick with my nokia. But then you start to get into things like, the kiosk where they would print your boarding pass doesn't do that anymore. You need a QR code on your phone. You can't call places anymore, you need to do it on their website, etc.

Now the government is starting to treat a lack of social media or technology as a reason for suspicion. In the not-too-distant future I imagine it will not be possible to go to an airport without a smart phone and a digital history known to Palentir.

I've done a fair bit of domestic (USA) flying over the last six months and when flights are spontaneously cancelled for weather/staffing/crew timeouts/random apocalyptic actions, a phone has been priceless in getting quickly rebooked and out of the trouble zone. Even if that means cancelling the flight and buying a ticket on a different airline (looking at you, AA)

You do not want to spend an hour in the customer service line to find out that all open seats on the next flight out were scooped up 59 minutes ago.

I'm sad we've just accepted that no useful staff at the airport is an acceptable state of affairs.

They're full of outsourced agents whose contracts are very specific and don't include things like assisting customers during IRROPS, as I understand it. Or they have their hands tied by the airlines

I'd like government intervention now that the free market has failed - there is almost no choice you can make that offers real customer service

There are physical staff at airports, but you can't have 40 agents standing around at each counter waiting for the next disaster to arrive and help with rebooking. So you hire two per counter. But that means when something comes up, everyone is stuck in line for hours to get help face-to-face.

I didn't say there is no staff. I said "useful staff" and then clarified I meant staff empowered to help during IRROPS. But I appreciate this is about the US and most of my experience is in Europe. I guess things aren't so bad in the US?

In my experience in Europe, there are very very few staff who can help, except at major hubs. Even then, if you've not got high status, you won't get much help.

> but you can't have 40 agents standing around at each counter waiting for the next disaster to arrive and help with rebooking

That is the exact excuse they used to reduce the empowered agents to 0

Or, if you want to have one with you, leave your regular cell phone at home (or ship it ahead to your destination via parcel carrier) and carry a burner/travel-only phone instead. Don't put any personal data on that phone. Not even contact numbers. Carry those in printed form separately.

We really need some straightforward way to carry a mostly-wiped phone, and then download an app, input credentials [0] (stored in your head), and have everything [1] downloaded from a cloud server and ready to go.

[0] since I'm spelling this out, one of those credentials should be a passphrase such that the server doesn't have access to your data

[1] modulo data/apps you actually want on a phone in a foreign country, of course

Interesting idea. But, in your vision, what would be the main difference between this approach and actually wiping your device, install just some basic apps you need during the travel (e.g. airline's app for the boarding pass and flight info) and then restore from your cloud backup at the end of the flight? Main difference I see is that Apple/Google wouldn't have access to your data, but this only makes sense if you're not using their services to start with.

You just reinvented iCloud - welcome to 2011.

Does iCloud not blast you with a bunch of "2FA" hassles the way Google does? That passwords are no longer complete account credentials makes this approach a non-starter, unless you want to come up with some protocol with a trusted person who stays home (with access to your account) and can perform those verification steps for you.

Even so I would still be worried about the nonstandard behavior of activating a new device in a foreign country causing my Apple/Google account to get straight up locked by their arbitrary and capricious "security" systems.

Passkeys are stored in your Apple Keychain. I don’t think you have to go through 2FA if you use a Passkey with Google.

I can throw my iPhone in the ocean, go to the nearest cell phone store/Apple Store and log into my Apple account and you won’t be able to tell the difference between my old phone and new phone - all apps, data, icon positions, passwords, photos, settings, bookmarks, history, messages etc will be restored

I don't really know how Passkeys or Apple Keychain works. But regardless I would think there has to be some other step to go from merely knowing a password to being able to access a cloud account (which includes the Keychain), no?

Are you saying that you can throw your phone in the ocean, have access to no other devices (including a SIM card), obtain a new phone, input your email+password, and reliably have that new phone onboarded? Because it certainly doesn't work that way in Android+GApps land from everything I've experienced - rather there is always a step where at the very least you have to authenticate using another logged-in session or email challenge.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s worked that way since 2011.

If you go into the Apple Store or your carrier, they hand you new phone, you log in to your iCloud account and it asks you which back up you want to use if you have multiple backups. You might these days have to enter your passcode from your old device.

You or they call your carrier or depending on your carrier you can register your e-sim directly from your phone.

Well it's certainly not that way in Android+GApps land, which is why I wrote my original comment.

> It's not as hard as you think.

International travel is infinitely more difficult without a cell phone.

When I was younger and international roaming was expensive I travelled internationally without a phone. It’s possible, but it’s so much easier to do it with a phone. Later when I finally stopped being a cheap student and bought a data plan my trips were so much more efficient because I wasn’t losing so much time trying to figure everything out without a phone.

For international business trips, devices are mandatory. This isn’t even an option.

And then you look like an undercover officer running a sting operation for Uber drivers (https://youtu.be/LqwJFuntco4?t=150).

Maybe the world needs a virtual phone in the cloud which you access with a browser from a dumb device.

This is where boomer stereotypes come from.

> the government is overreaching

> "well back in my day we used to walk uphill both ways!"

Some older people don't hear well so they talk louder due to that. It's not that they intend to be loud, it's just they don't hear as well as younger people do. Many vets also having hearing loss due to service related injuries. So next time you hear someone talking loud... remember that.

Yeah, in my open space office there's an old guy that talks in Teams calls all day like he learned to whisper in a helicopter, and me and others complained to management about him disturbing everyone trying to focus on our work, and boss said "he's deaf, what do you want us to do about it, give him a private office?" and my answer in my head was "no, but have you heard of this wild idea called WFH where people can't disturb others or get disturbed by others talking too loud? Crazy idea, right?"

I love OpenBSD for similar reasons, except, I still run it as my primary desktop and on an old Chromebook. It just works. No drama with updates. Upgrade every six months. I'd be lost without it.

i plan to run netbsd on my chromebook do you have a good manual? or how to?

Large well-regarded CS schools still have 'systems' and other traditional CS specializations. I would encourage looking at those programs.

Experience is still needed too. You can't just blindly trust AI outputs. So, my advice is to get experience in an old-fashioned CS program and by writing you own side projects, contributing to open source projects, etc.

> Experience is still needed too. You can't just blindly trust AI outputs. So, my advice is to get experience in an old-fashioned CS program and by writing you own side projects, contributing to open source projects, etc.

The issue is you can't blindly trust humans either, and increasingly you're better off asking an AI than a human.

What is "systems"? What do "systems engineer" people do?

Drivers, kernels, firmwares, low-level networking, the likes. Some higher-level infrastructure, like compilers, interpreters, runtime systems (Qt/Glib-like code).

I'm not sure where the question comes from? The divide between systems and app programming is almost as old as coding itself; it's not some distinction without difference - it's the difference between writing a TypeScript microservice for handling CRUD on some tables versus contributing to the TypeScript compiler, Node runtime (eg. uv), and PostgreSQL query planner.

Both kinds of programming are needed; both require specific (diverging in places) skills to do well. FWIW, I don't think systems programming is any safer (maybe a little bit) from AI than making apps, but the distinction between the two kinds of programming is real.

I dont think parent was questioning it, sounded they were more curious but thanks for explaining because i wasnt sure myself.

Re: safe from LLMs, id imagine the level of rigor in sys engineering is higher so maybe people are more wary of LLM produced code?

I'm not sure. You'd have to define "level of rigor". TypeScript has a vastly more expressive type system than C, for example, so given their respective prevalence in their domains, you could easily say that coding apps nowadays is actually more rigorous. There's Rust, but somehow people write lots of apps in it. And so on.

I don't think systems programming is inherently harder than writing apps. You deal with different sets of problems (users stubbornly misusing your UI vs. hardware vendors notoriously lying in the manuals; hundreds of dependencies vs. endemic NIH syndrome; etc.), but coding is, for the most part, the same thing everywhere. IME, the "level of rigor" (as in "kinds and pervasiveness of actions taken to ensure correctness") depends much more on actual people or organizations than on the domain.

You're probably talking about cases when systems engineers develop apps. In my experience, when app developers develop apps, it's a mess.

IMO people should eat more fiber. A lot more fiber. It cleans the gut, the liver, absorbs cholesterol, slows insulin response and makes you feel full longer. The microbes in our guts need it to function.

Rather than jumping from one fad diet to another, just eat what you like and be sure to get a lot of fiber each day.

Agreed, but I think the mechanism relates to different microbes. If there are two microbes in your gut, and type A requires a dose of high-calorie, low-fiber food coming down the pipe every day, and type B is not able to reproduce as fast as type A but is able to live on high-fiber food, this tells you two things:

type A cannot have been living in humans thousands of years ago, but type B might have

type A benefits from making your brain worse at choosing healthy foods, and type B does not

Which kind would you rather have in your gut?

To do this eat stuff that grows and not further processed.

Don't be simplistic. Mold on old bread grows and is natural, yet you should not eat it all day.

> you should not eat it all day

How sure are we about this? How certain are we that those specific species of mold have a net negative effect, rather than a net positive (like for example mushrooms)? Penicillium grows on stale foods and I doubt eating it would have a net negative effect.

>I doubt eating it would have a net negative effect.

Feel free to eat it.

"Penicillium Species and Their Associated Mycotoxins" - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27924532/

Muchrooms have mycotoxins too. And red meat is a carcinogen. And predator fish have plenty of heavy metals. And the list goes on and on. Yet we eat all those things. Hence the "net positive".

Let me also introduce you to the new kid on the block, the resistant starch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6IcMW5Khh4

The post is about a scientific study and your response is your opinion with nothing else to back it up?

they IMO are trying to help by giving good ideas to keep a healthy gut. Add that to the study and at least to me, it´s a nice idea.

btw people, do drink water to keep up with the fiber. Otherwise it might not help.

Roughly what I follow. I pour chia seeds into everything I eat. Also: edamame, goji berries, green peas. Etc etc. My particular motivation is 1) health, but 2) I lift quite a bit and try to get as much protein from food as possible.

> eat what you like and be sure to get a lot of fiber each day

Sure sounds like another fad diet.

> Sure sounds like another fad diet.

Yeah! A fad lasting millions of years of human evolution, however.

The fad lasting millions of years is "eat what you can get, what is fibre?"

Practically advocates of every fad diet claim so.

This has been the recommendation for general health for as long as I have been alive. Fiber is really important and there are plenty of easy healthy options that are cheap, unlike the astroturfed beef checkoff primal diet

The charitable interpretation is "just eat more fiber, regardless of the rest"

The issue with strictly enforcing the speed limit on roads is that sometimes, people must speed. They must break the law. Wife giving birth, rushing a wounded person to the ER, speeding to avoid a collision, etc.

If we wanted to strictly enforce speed limits, we would put governors on engines. However, doing that would cause a lot of harm to normal people. That's why we don't do it.

Stop and think about what it means to be human. We use judgement and decide when we must break the laws. And that is OK and indeed... expected.

> sometimes, people must speed. They must break the law. Wife giving birth, rushing a wounded person to the ER, speeding to avoid a collision

I would argue that only the last one is a valid reason because it's the only one where it's clear that not speeding leads to direct worse consequences.

Speed limits don't exist just to annoy people. Speeding increases the risk of accident and especially the consequences of an accident.

I don't trust people to drive well in a stressful situation, so why would it be a good idea to let them increase the risk by speeding.

The worst part is that it's not even all that likely that the time saved by speeding ends up mattering.

The “wife giving birth” exception for speeding is always so amusing to me.

In the U.S., the average distance from a hospital is 10 miles (in a rural area). Assuming 55 mph speed limits, that means most people are 11 minutes from a hospital. Realistically, “speeding” in this scenario probably means something like 80 mph, so you cut your travel time to 7.5 minutes.

In other words, you just significantly increased your chances of killing your about to be born kid, your wife, yourself, and innocent bystanders just to potentially arrive at a hospital 210 seconds sooner.

Edit: the rushing someone to an ER scenario is possibly more ridiculous, since you can’t teleport yourself, and if the 3.5 minutes in the above scenario would make a difference, then driving someone to the ER is a significantly worse option than starting first aid while waiting for EMTs to arrive.

I live 1.6 miles from my county hospital.

If my wife is having a stroke, I can definitely pick her up, toss her in the car, and get to the ER faster than an ambulance can reach my house.

As I'm sure you know, every second counts when it comes to recovery from a stroke.

What kind of first aid do you give to someone having a stroke anyway?

If you ring for the ambulance, (Australian context), you will be told what to do! The telephony scripts have first aid baked in. The paramedic will come (not necessarily with an ambulance) and start appropriate definitive treatment as good as what you will get in a hospital. A consequence of a stroke is a cardiac arrest. If you are driving you won't know and won't do CPR.

The 1996 movie Transpotting still gives me shivers up my spine by putting someone in a car and drop at ER rather than calling for help. Too many people die needlessly, even today, when well meaning people load shooting victims, stroke victims and heart attacks etc into their car and drive to ER without asking their local emergency services for advice.

PS. You can't 100% of the time get to ER faster than the ambulance. There are more ambulances than emergency rooms by number. If an ambulance is at the county hospital they'll be faster than you.

E(accident due to going faster) vs E(worse outcome due to waiting)

Your argument only makes sense if the only possible bad thing is a car accident -- to make my point clearer, would you take a 1% chance of losing 100$ to avoid a 50% chance of losing 10$?

Depends how much money you have, but it can be a perfectly rational decision.

No, that's not the reason why people speed. True emergencies are a rounding error.

The real reason is that speed limits are generally lower than the safe speed of traffic, and enforcement begins at about 10mph over the stated limits.

People know they can get away with it.

If limits were raised 15% and strictly enforced, it would probably be better for society. Getting a ticket for a valid emergency would be easy to have reversed.

The answer is not a governor but a speed camera, they have them all over in Brazil and they send you a ticket if you speed through them. Put an exception in the law for emergencies, provide an appeal process, and voila.

Abstractions have been happening since the 1970s when ASM was replaced by the C Programming Language. From there we got C++ (look, it actually has a string type that most humans understand!) then we got memory safe managed languages like Go that is almost human readable, runs almost everywhere and doesn't have buffer overflows.

ASM was machine specific. C was portable but required expert programmers. C++ was even more user friendly, but still very hard for normal people. Today, most anyone can write a program in Go.

The more we abstract, the less knowledge/expertise is needed. So yes, programs are being built by people who don't really understand what they are doing. That is intended.

Abstractions truncate the decision space of the layer above them by making understandable trade offs. LLMs don’t abstract anything, your code is still in python or php or Go. It just feels like they abstract if you don’t understand the output since not understanding the layer down is what we associate with non-leaky reliable abstractions. LLMs are abstractions the same way that your code editor is an abstraction- it’s not a layer, it’s an interface.