Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦

Avid doer. He/Him | My views are my own

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

Looks like they already took it down or blocked me. Regardless, I would track down that owner. They seem to be bad actors.

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

Hey @gmail, just got a call from a scammer claiming to be from your security team trying to get me to login to https://t.co/pOmzKUY17s to try to catch my login info. #security #fyi

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@Al_Grigor I am not faulting the AI here. You should know better.

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

My new favorite track. #ai #gamer #rock @suno

https://t.co/DNaO2QzInx

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@ibuildthecloud I ran into an issue a couple years ago where I had to build arm. I ended up converting a Mac mini to asahi alpha, dropped k3s on it to run my self hosted runners. Worked surprisingly well.

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@WN_Homestead @PamphletsY Bot? Dec 2025 account.

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@ibuildthecloud Arguably not your first moment though. Go forth and vibe!

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@ShivamHere_56 The real background on this is even more interesting than this post. Watch an interview with him after the jump. 1. Red Bull did not fund it. 2. Those weren't his friends at the time but professionals. 3. They had to "borrow" the plane. 4. The pilot did not have a license.

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@ibuildthecloud Lucky you, I about have them memorized.

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

Saturday night fun with @Pebble 's new firmware dev kit. Thanks Eric and co!

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@ibuildthecloud @Copilot Your copilot got you up in the clouds.

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@Jason Calm down gramps.

[Darren Shepherd @ibuildthecloud]

I just watched @theo new video on why MCP sucks. So I thought I would explain why MCP actually doesn't suck.

Protocols only exist to connect two distinct systems in a standard way. An LLM can only perform actions through tool calling. Tool calling is the standard interface. If I'm writing an application that uses an LLM and wishes to do tool calling, I don't need MCP. The code that calls the LLM can just implement the tool calling interface and be done with it. This is essentially theos use case and probably why he doesnt articulate MCP well.

If you want the tool implementation to be independent of the code calling an LLM this is where a protocol comes in. Prior to MCP most approaches to independently distribute tools focus on language frameworks like langchain. No language independent way existed such that a LLM client in python could connect to a say a Java tool. But furthermore no standard way existed such that one could expose a tool publicly in a secure multi-tenant fashion. MCP solves this problem. And despite what @theo stated, MCP does define auth, it's one of the core features of the spec (yay OAuth 2.1, DCR,and DCIM 😭)

If you use MCP for 1 tool or 1000 tools, it still has value. The issue most people complain about today is that there are too many tools or poorly defined tools. This is an issue independent of MCP and where a lot of exciting work like code mode is being done to address it. But there's other progressive discovery methods that exist, such as the implementations of ChatGPT apps, which is based on MCP, or Claude skills. Code mode, or progressive discovery don't remove the need for MCP, they just provide a meta approach to deal with tool scalability issues but can still be implemented with MCP.

One could possibly make the argument that we just don't need to ship tools as systems of their own, but people are doing it and getting value out of it, so 🤷‍♂️

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@ibuildthecloud @ladybirdbrowser I will give it a go, thanks for the heads up. No argument on the state of Mozilla, sad though.

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@ibuildthecloud Amen.

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@ibuildthecloud Is this workflow in the room with you now?

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@winsletts No it was stupid all along.

[Mikhail Kozorovitskiy 🇺🇲 🇺🇦 @MKOperator]

@Jason Founder University meetup in SF, fall 2022. Pro coach vibe, quick m&g at the end.

[赛先生的小迷弟🇺🇦 @TruthOfFinance]

📱 [Trump T1 Phone: “Patriotic Marketing” Disguised as Made-in-USA, But Actually Made in China]

Trump’s newly released “patriotic smartphone,” the T1, claims to be Made in the USA, but numerous details suggest it’s merely a rebranded Chinese Android phone:

⸻

🔍 Camera Layout:
The rear camera module of the T1 closely resembles that of the UMIDIGI A15 Ultra, a Chinese-brand phone. It features a 50MP main camera paired with two 2MP budget sensors—far below the flashy specs used in marketing.

🕳️ Front Camera Punch-Hole Position:
The 6.78” AMOLED screen features a centered punch-hole front camera, nearly identical to those found on mid-tier Chinese models like the UMIDIGI A15 Ultra and Doogee V30.

⚙️ Matching Specs:
T1 claims to offer 12GB RAM + 256GB storage, Android 15, Type-C port, and a 5000mAh battery—specs that mirror the UMIDIGI A15 Ultra. However, even the front camera seems to be a downgraded version.

🧾 Origin Red Flags:
There’s no transparent FCC registration or credible manufacturer information. The “Made in USA” label is likely limited to final packaging or casing assembly. Core components—motherboard, screen, battery—are almost certainly from China. Most probable OEMs include Chinese manufacturers like UMIDIGI (Shenzhen Youmi), DOOGEE (Shenzhen Doogee), or Infinix (Transsion Holdings). Once FCC filings are public, these links may be confirmed.

🇨🇳 Conclusion:
The carrier-locked version of the UMIDIGI A15 Ultra sells for around $249 overseas, while the Trump T1 is priced at $499. This is a low-end Chinese Android phone in disguise, repackaged to appear “American-made” and marketed to exploit nationalist sentiment and cash in on MAGA loyalty.