与「enough」相关的搜索结果

Tomorrow will be my last day at Google after 27 years, and watching it grow from 25 people to 190,000+ has been an amazing journey. Below is a note I shared with many people internally at Google today. An excerpt is: It has been an absolute pleasure to work with you and to help build some of the most widely used and impactful products of all time. As a kid, I dreamed of helping build software that would be used by many people, and Google now has thirteen products used by more than a billion people (amazing!). Our work has had a tremendous impact in the world, and I have been lucky enough to collaborate and form friendships with many colleagues that I deeply admire, respect, and enjoy. It still brings me joy every time I see people out in the world using our products to find information, handle email, translate documents, watch videos, learn new things, navigate and understand the physical world, browse the web, use their phone, run large-scale computations on our infrastructure, ride in an autonomous vehicle, or perform complex tasks with the help of our AI systems. I hope you all share this sense of joy, because it is a shared accomplishment! Thank you to all of my colleagues at Google over many years! Now I'm excited to go start @DiscoLoopAI with my longtime friends and colleagues @Sanjay_Ghemawat, @OriolVinyalsML, and @quocleix. (Updated post: slightly redacted to not have some personal info)

Today we are releasing Cloudflare OS, a chatbot with connectors, just like every other tech company is doing. Except actually, it's different. This is a remake of Sandstorm[.]io, my startup from 10 years ago, except this time built on Cloudflare Workers (the platform I've spent the last 9 years building) and deeply leveraging AI. This is more or less the culmination of my secret 10-year master plan. This is a full-on personal app vibe coding platform, in which the sandbox is so secure that you can pretty much go wild -- the AI cannot introduce a significant security bug. We believe a company's security team can feel comfortable giving non-technical users permission to vibe code and then sleep soundly at night. How is that possible? It's the Sandstorm security model, revisited. A "Gadget" is the same thing as a Sandstorm "Grain": a fine-grained app instance. For example, if you have a document editor app, each document runs as a separate instance of the app, in a separate sandbox (one "Gadget"). This means two things, both of which I think are Big Deals: 1. The platform can manage all access control, by controlling who can access the Gadget at all. There is no way the Gadget can accidentally leak itself to an attacker -- even an attacker who has access to other Gadgets based on the same app. 2. Since everyone is running their own copy of the code, everyone can freely *modify* their copy of the code. Think about #2# a bit more. What if, when you wanted a new feature in the software you are using, you could just prompt your agent to add it? This doesn't work in the cloud Software-as-a-Service model, because you are not running your own copy of the app. Sandstorm tried to change that 10 years ago, but the world wasn't ready, because not enough people had the skills or patience to actually modify their software. AI has changed that. Now you just ask the agent -- the same agent that you are using to help you interact with the Gadget can also modify the code of the Gadget. And it is so fun.

Today, I want to share something that happened to me on Kraken. I’m completely new to crypto, and this was my first time using Kraken. All I wanted to do was convert USDC into USD. Unfortunately, because USDT and USD differ by only one letter, I accidentally selected USDT instead of USD. I didn’t realize my mistake until the transaction had already been completed. In less than a minute, a single misclick resulted in a loss of approximately 810 USDT—more than $800. To be honest, I was shocked and devastated. Like many newcomers, I assumed that all major stablecoins were worth roughly the same, so converting between them would involve little or almost no loss. I never imagined that such a simple mistake could instantly cost me more than 1% of my funds. I immediately contacted Kraken Support, hoping they would understand that this was an honest human error and review my case, or at least consider making a one-time exception. What disappointed me even more was that almost every response came from AI. I was never able to speak with a real support agent. The only explanation I received was that the transaction had already been executed, the conversion details had been displayed before confirmation, and therefore nothing could be reversed or refunded. I understand that Kraken may not have violated its own rules, and I acknowledge that the final amount I would receive was displayed before I confirmed the transaction. But I believe that “the information was displayed” does not necessarily mean “a new user truly understands what it means.” As a beginner, I saw what I believed was a normal stablecoin conversion. I had no idea that the number shown on the confirmation screen meant I was about to lose more than $800. If a platform expects users to recognize an $800+ pricing difference on their own, instead of proactively warning them that the conversion is unusually unfavorable, I don’t believe that’s a user-friendly experience—especially for beginners. I believe that a platform responsible for customers’ assets should do more than simply display numbers. It should also be designed to help users avoid obvious mistakes that can lead to significant financial losses. Crypto is already complicated enough. The risks users take should come from the market—not from a product design that makes such costly mistakes so easy to make. This experience has left me deeply disappointed and has almost completely destroyed my trust in Kraken. I’m not trying to deny Kraken’s rules, and I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m simply asking @kraken and @krakensupport to review my case, seriously consider improving the user experience, provide real human support when genuine mistakes happen, and consider a one-time resolution for customers who make an honest human error. If this could happen to me, it could happen to any newcomer entering the world of crypto. I hope my experience helps others avoid making the same mistake. Please double-check every click. @krakenfx @krakenpro @krakensupport

Ben Affleck shares how he overcame his alcohol addiction. Says it is not “overpriced rehabs”. “I hate to say it but the cure for addiction and the only cure I’ve seen is not these overpriced rehabs or these fraudulent fixes that are sold to people” “The cure for addiction is suffering” “You suffer enough and then something inside you goes ‘I’m done’”

Either @AnthropicAI is terrible at building sandboxes... or excellent at marketing. (or both) But enough with the “we created a hacking monster” games. Do it for real. I put this in an @BitGo wallet for you. Go get it. 100 BTC: bc1qg4jcyumevszta3rs869v9jrf6rz9z360svp03jsl5xcryfd7xqvs4hurnq

Software quality now depends on the constraints you set around your agents. When humans manually wrote most of the code we could look at the code itself for signs of quality. Is it clean? Is it thoughtful? Is it fast? Can another engineer understand it? Does it have tests? Agents can now generate more code than people can read. When code generation scales beyond review, quality - checks for one or more of correctness, maintainability, security, performance etc - increasingly has to live somewhere else. It moves into the harness, environment and operating system around the agent. This can be the tests and deterministic checks that decide what the system is allowed to do (amongst others). Your constraints are what may eventually enable loops of agents to deliver production software reliably. They can include unit tests, property tests, acceptance tests, mutation testing and quality metrics. This back-pressure lets the system resist bad work before it becomes somebody elses problem. Set your constraints. They decide whether the code your agents generate is good enough to ship.