What's the difference between this and 1. setting my laptop at home and 2. connect it through Tailscale?

I lose ownership of my laptop, you install whatever software you want on it (with the security risks that it conveys) and in turn "you let me connect to my computer"?

Well connectivity (speed) and energy stability may be 2 of them (your internet may go down along with electricity).

Or look at it another way: you wanted to buy/rent a server you intended to put in datacenter anyway. Now you can do the same with laptop.

Jokes on you I got a 20kWh backup UPS on the entire house.

Now on a serious note: internet can go down anywhere, even for them. There is nowhere stated that, if your old hardware misbehaves, you can use others, and there are privacy concerns with running your stuff on their software stack… So I don’t see a huge advantage honestly.

What? They should freaking think of sanctions, not about "how easy is to lose Google account". Both Google and Apple are American companies. If someone lands on a sanctions list, they close your account without further notice [1].

Let me get this straight: you can be a defender of human rights, aligned with the country you live in, but if you fall in disgrace with the American government, _you can't even do transactions with your own country_.

So this is fundamentally flawed, and violates the fundamental rights of German citizens in Germany.

[1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/british-icc-chief-prosecutor-l...

His wife and kids are sanctioned too. Sometimes it isn't even anything you did.

Sanctions are a bonus point argument, but shouldn't be a factor either. No citizen should be subjected to this, whether the company running it is American or German. Can you imagine if the Nazis had this level of control in the 1930s? Imagine having your ID digitally revoked, effectively cutting you out of society completely, without so much as an attic to hide in before it can happen. This is a completely dystopian legislation from start to finish. There is no possible way this can ever provide a benefit to the German people, it exists only to control them.

Knowing the German, how much of a fiasco will this be? Many Germans despise having to go online with specific services due to "Datenschutz". Now you are telling them that they need an external (American) service in order to use this?

What I don't understand is: ELSTER (taxes) already uses electronic signatures, don't these signature already fulfil the requirements of eIDAS? Why do we even need Google/Apple?

Germans are likely going to try and hang the public servants for high treason via their constitutional court.

Does anyone know which platform this webpage uses? I like the aesthetics and functionality :)

Yeah I agree. Since Russia is mostly empty and they have a lot of oil, let's put all refineries there! (/s)

This is to show that there is more geopolitically than meets the eye.

In some industries it’s critical. Think about aerospace where code is almost always homegrown or done by specialized company, and are specific implementations for specific needs. You don’t have that many COTS due to the criticality etc.

The thing about specific needs is that they are usually narrow. You could throw darts at the dartboard of problems, working on very narrow problems for years and never get a job solving any of them. If a problem calls out to you and you won't stop until you get a job with it, then the effort could be worth it. But sometimes, even if you get THE job, you'll have a slight twist in constraints that makes most of your prep go by the wayside.

Solving a variety of problems makes you better at solving problems.

I agree, but we all have to pick our battles. Do you want to solve real problems, enjoy other things in life, or solve some problem that a guy on the internet said is essential for any "real" programmer?

We need laws that force Agents to be identified to their "masters" when doing these things... Good luck in the current political climate.

The question is: if we keep the same context and model, and the same LLM configuration (quantization etc.), does it provide the same output at same prompt?

If the answer is no, then we cannot be sure to use it as a high-level language. The whole purpose of a language is providing useful, concise constructs to avoid something not being specified (undefined behavior).

If we can't guarantee that the behavior of the language is going to be the same, it is no better than prompting someone some requirements and not checking what they are doing until the date of delivery.

Ah, people are starting to see the light.

This is something that could be distilled from some industries like aviation, where specification of software (requirements, architecture documents, etc.) is even more important that the software itself.

The problem is that natural language is in itself ambiguous, and people don't really grasp the importance of clear specification (how many times I have repeated to put units and tolerances to any limits they specify by requirements).

Another problem is: natural language doesn't have "defaults": if you don't specify something, is open to interpretation. And people _will_ interpret something instead of saying "yep I don't know this".

> The problem is that natural language is in itself ambiguous

This is literally what software developers are actually paid to do. They are not paid to write code. This is reinventing software development.

IMO, it's clarifying software development. I think ultimately it means that some people who are slightly on the softer side of development will become indistinguishable from other developers, and people on the more mechanical side of development will disappear.

If what you do can be done by the systematic manipulation of symbols, we have a better system for that now. If the spec they hand to you has to be so specific that you don't have to think while implementing it, we have a machine that can do everything except think that can handle that.

> If the spec they hand to you has to be so specific that you don't have to think while implementing it

Does this exist in 2026? I feel like, at least in my bubble, expectations on individual developers has never been higher. I feel like the cut has already been made.

You can use LLMs as specification compilers. They are quite good at finding ambiguities in specs and writing out lists of questions for the author to answer, or inferring sensible defaults in explicitly called out ways.

Yeah, if you can somehow convince them you really, really want them to follow the specification and not just do whatever they want.

And is doesn't matter how many times you tell them the implementation and, more importantly, the tests needs to 100% follow the spec they'll still write tests to match the buggy code or just ignore bugs completely until you call them out on it and/or watch them like a hawk.

Maybe I'm just holding it wrong, who knows?

Time to bring out the flowcharts again!

I see the fancy methodologies and processes as the way of streamlining what you have to do in order to "sit down to think about the software", particularly in teams of more than one developer.

Most of it happens, as always, at the interface. So these methodologies help you manage these interfaces between people, machine and product.