I always find Simon Wilson’s post to be odd. He gets access to things, being tipped of things. Who is paying and why? Most of the posts are of little to no value to me. This might be the prime example. Webassembly is the sandbox. That is unless you disagree than you are being paid for your posts and not disclosing it.

As someone who's been blogging since 2002, I can tell you first hand that you get a fair amount of outreach. But I even though I have had to put Simon's feed through a summarizer to be able to keep up, I don't see any bias there--just _a lot_ of writing about whatever he's interested in, and either our own perceptions of what is interesting and the law of averages inevitably kick in and there are a few duds here and there.

Good opportunities arise for those who stick their neck out. Here's some inspiration for what to blog about: https://simonwillison.net/2022/Nov/6/what-to-blog-about/

It seems he started his blog in 2003: https://simonwillison.net/2003/Jun/12/oneYearOfBlogging/

He is a familiar blogger for HN readers, has been for a long time. While I agree the posts are nowadays a bit repetitive, he has also very interesting non-AI content. Some people probably upvote because they like the author, not necessarily the content.

I don't understand this criticism. Most agents today are running with no sandboxing at all. Every person has to figure out how they will sandbox each agent (run under bubblewrap? container-use? what about random MCP servers, do they need to be sandboxed separately?) on an ad hoc basis. Most people don't bother with it.

And then you see the recent vulnerabilities in opencode for example. The current model is unsustainable

It would be great if desktop Linux adopted a better security model (maybe inspired by Android). So far we got this https://xkcd.com/1200/ and it's not sufficient