If you are not yet in Oracle's clutches you have to be extremely naive or shortsighted to be using Oracle cloud. Obviously the low prices are because they have a shit product and shit reputation, and the moment they think they captured large enough audience they are going to hike them
Yup. They're not offering those prices out of generosity. They're offering them because that's the most they can charge big players who understand what it means to buy from Oracle.
> Recently, only 36% of suspicious activity reports from US companies originated from the surveillance of private messages anyway.
I don't have many opinions on this but this sort of lazy logic would make me nervous. 36% is not a small number and that's before the folks doing this activity find out that private message is less patrolled.
"Recently, only 36% of violent crime happened in broad daylight in front of a police station" would be a pretty wild statistic. Even a fraction of the reports being positives would be surprising.
Even if you could fix egregious cases like directly sharing location, I'm pretty sure any access to the internet could be compromised via clever use of data brokers.
I think most computer users dislike this but I see a ton of normal folks do this, they don't have the same conceptual boundaries folks on this site do (myself included).
Yeah, but is that a good thing? I think the lack of those conceptual boundaries are exactly why computers are so difficult to learn for some people. Access to web services, and the services themselves, still aren’t reliable enough to support this idea of a completely transparent computer experience where you don’t need to know what machine a file is on.
This isn't incompatible with the agent placing the purchase. I already let Claude Code do _most_ of what it wants but make it ask permission before sending a message on Slack. An LLM having the capability to do X is not incompatible with it being deterministically forced to seek permission to do X.
If a developer builds in a way such that the demand for street parking outstrips supply, the street parking still has a cost, that cost is just expressed in time to find a spot, not dollars like you're suggesting. People unwilling to pay that time cost will find paid lots or not have a car (which is basically the dynamic in my building: people either pay $450 a month for a spot or they spend 10-15 minutes looking for a free street spot).
In practice, of course, existing residents feel entitled to "their" street parking and get mad when a new building with new people contending for those spots is built but there's no logical reason to preference residents who have previously lived there. This is where politics rears its head though.
I completely agree with your comment, but would also like to add that many cities have restricted or stopped permitting the construction of above-surface parkades, further distorting the market.
This is correct which will incentivize the constructions of private lots etc (assuming the people you mentioned value their time more than the $ those lots cost). I don't see any reason you can't trust markets to address the supply of a commodity product.
Exactly, it's not like a Target going up in an area with no parking minimums is going to be like "great our massive big box store won't need any parking!" They're just going to be incentivized to build enough parking to fill their store to levels they expect based on the massive amount of data they have, and not just some gut-feeling BS from the 60s in the parking minimums regulations "department store - 20 spots per 100sqft" or some bullshit.
Google Play - at least on tablets - makes ads vs not ads much clearer and, if you're searching for one app very obviously (like "Kindle") puts that above the ads.
Companies good at selling and distributing ads have the confidence to not be annoying about them.
The reason we focus on the OEM more than the pilots is that Boeing getting its act together (or being regulated to do so) is more scalable than every pilot in the world becoming more skilled. Individually blaming pilots isn't effective, regardless of whether you're morally for or against it.
Given the number of studies on pilot workload and the many harsh lessons learned about how to put together a manual and a training program that has intended outcomes mrktsn is ignoring the realities of operating a vehicle where a second of delay can make a huge difference.
The most stark example was the ambiguity around 'take-off power' and 'take off power', and that is when the writers of the documentation and their management are not trying to pretend a new aircraft is the same as a complete redesign of an older one with which besides the name and the operational niche it has relatively little in common.
I always wondered why there were no whistleblowers before this led to accidents. Or were there?
Ah, whistleblowers. Always and forever committing suicide. Turns out thinking you can stab the gorgon with no consequences is a form of mental illness.
I don't think anyone really disputes what should be done when an LLM violates copyright in a way that would be a violation if a human did it.
Questions about LLMs are primarily about whether it's legal for them to do something that would be legal for a human to do and secondarily about the technical feasibility of policing them at all.
reply