flux

Then there are the cases where you want the LLM to actually interact with the page, using the current web page state and your credentials.

For example, one might want to tell it to uncheck all the "opt in" checkboxes in the page.. And express this task in plain English language.

Many useful interactive agent tasks could be achieved with this. The chatbot would be merely the first step.

I haven't done it, but you could try socket activation.

Then you certainly shouldn't! But if I have one icecream in my hand, I'll much prefer go to the self-checkout instead of queuing to the register.

One local store also has a hand-held scanner/terminal you can use while shopping. I think I could do big shopping with that as well, it's less of a chore do it while shopping. Previously I had only seen those at wholesale stores for businesses.

Maybe consider static ip assignment in your DHCP server (e.g. internet router) if at all possible.. Then you can add a name to it to /etc/hosts.

Alternatively you could use Avahi to provide mdns names to your local network

Do you have that file? If not, then unset SSH_AUTH_SOCK will work just as well.

If it does exist, then I suppose it has good chances of working correctly :). ssh-add -l will try to use that socket and list your keys in the service (or list nothing if there are no keys, but it would still work without error).

At the end of the log you find:

822413 connect(4, {sa_family=AF_UNIX, sun_path="/run/user/1000/gcr/ssh"}, 110) = 0
...
822413 read(4, 

meaning it's trying to interact with the ssh-agent, but it (finally) doesn't give a response.

Use the lsof command to figure out which program is providing the agent service and try to resolve issue that way. If it's not the OpenSSH ssh-agent, then maybe you can disable its ssh-agent functionality and use real ssh-agent in its place..

My wild guess is that the program might be trying to interactively verify the use of the key from you, but it is not succeeding in doing that for some reason.

I guess it's worth checking if those names point to the expected binaries, but I also think it would be highly unlikely they would be anything else than just /usr/bin/ssh and /usr/bin/ssh-agent.

As mentioned, -v (or -vv) helps to analyze the situation.

My theory is that you already have something providing ssh agent service, but that process is somehow stuck, and when ssh tries to connect it, it doesn't respond to the connect, or it accepts the connection but doesn't actually interact with ssh. Quite possibly ssh doesn't have a timeout for interacting with ssh-agent.

Using eval $(ssh-agent -s) starts a new ssh agent and replaces the environment variables in question with the new ones, therefore avoiding the use of the stuck process.

If this is the actual problem here, then before running the eval, echo $SSH_AUTH_SOCK would show the path of the existing ssh agent socket. If this is the case, then you can use lsof $SSH_AUTH_SOCK to see what that process is. Quite possibly it's provided by gnome-keyring-daemon if you're running Gnome. As to why that process would not be working I don't have ideas.

Another way to analyze the problem is strace -o logfile -f ssh .. and then check out what is at the end of the logfile. If the theory applies, then it would likely be a connect call for the ssh-agent.

I think the main problem is that Chromium still contributes towards the browser engine monoculture, as it is bug-for-bug compatible with Chrome. Therefore if you switch to Chromium, it's still enough for the web sites to test for Chrome compatibility, which they will, because it has the largest market share. Users of competing browsers suffer, further driving the lure of Chrome (or Chromium).

On the other hand, if people switched to some other engine, one that does not share the same core engine or even the same history, this will no longer hold: web sites would need to be developed against the spec, or at least against all the browsers they might realistically expect their customers to use.

I highly doubt businesses would have been this fast in making the switch.

Well that's exactly the worry. Why shouldn't it be? It is their business and livehood.

As if taking down the systems is the biggest cybersecurity threat a company might have.