It says that the parental settings (when enabled!) are just letting children do whatever they want by default:
- buying overpriced objects
- chat without any restriction online
- play without interruption for long time
I think the first one is probably the most poignant: piping children into disguised gambling addiction by default seems like a major fault. Borderline illegal, if you ask me.
It looks a lot like a phony feature "let's add a parental control, it will make people feel like we're trustworthy and bring back more revenue. And please don't disable ingame purchases by default, this is our cash cow".
I'm talking about the above comments argument that this kind of overreach is a healthy government regulatory framework. I am not talking about the argument from the person above them.
You seem to be forgetting a crucial part of this. The parent. If a parent is buying their child a gambling game then that's on them. Not on the government to force everyone to submit their IDs and face scans to play a game for adults.
Parental controls are not a phony feature at all. That's like saying accessibility options are phony features. It's an option for people who need it. Just because it isn't default in every scenario doesn't mean it's disingenuous.
No, I'm not saying the US appears to be health. I can't name any governments that are healthy. I haven't really spent the time to check all the governments of the world.
We shouldn't be saying "if an individual chooses to do so, we could achieve political harmony".
At what point does the government says: twitter/X has attained a critical mass and should adhere to strict political neutrality and enforce net-neutral policies, otherwise be dismantled ?
I know, your current US government benefits from this. But in general, a government should be working towards neutrality. Otherwise this is a power grab.
Apart from very specific people, that want to manipulate masses, having such a great power over opinion by manipulating what people see should be strictly controlled.
My wife’s work WiFi is handled by a gl.inet 150 (https://www.gl-inet.com/products/gl-ar150/) which is tucked behind her desk since at least 2019. Vanilla openwrt on it, provides WiFi from an Ethernet slot in the wall.
Uptime is in years, it’s invisible and chugs along without visible power draw. All her devices connect to it, including her Cisco voip phone. It autossh to my ovh server with remote port forward for remote admin. Cost me 15€ in 2016.
>> I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand for manufacturers
> My wife’s work WiFi is handled by a gl.inet 150 (...) since at least 2019. All her devices connect to it (...) Cost me 15€ in 2016.
I think this answers GP's question as (yet another) solid reason why manufacturers "can't understand" prosumer needs - it's because targeting prosumers, or generally making products that "just works", is very bad for sales down the line.
Hehe. Bought TP LINK TL-WR1043ND (one of the first models of affordable home routers with integrated gigabit switch) in 2012 for $40 (maybe $50, but not more), flashed OpenWrt and still using to this day.
Some companies aren't very big, and neither are their budgets. And of course, it might be said that there is no solution more permanent than a temporary one.
We've got a large-ish color laser printer (IIRC, an HP 4600) at one of our locations. It's not a big place; it has only had as many as 3 people working there regularly and has been normally staffed by exactly 1 person for the last several years.
When we moved into that building, a missing link was noticed: The printer did not feature wifi, and there was no way to get a clean ethernet drop to it without visible external conduit. The boss man didn't like the idea of conduit.
To get it working for now, I went over to Wal-Mart and bought whatever the current rev of Linksys WRT54G was. I put some iteration of Tomato on it so it could operate in station mode and graft the printer into the wifi network.
I plugged that blue Linksys box in back in 2007; it turned 18 years old this year.
It's pretty little slow by modern wifi standards, and the 2.4GHz band is much more congested than it used to be, but: It still works, and nobody seems motivated to spend money to implement a better solution... so it remains.
For the second time of the week this morning, I spent 45 min reviewing a merge request where the guy has no idea what he did, didn’t test, and let the llm hallucinate a very bad solution to a simple problem.
He just had to read the previous commit, which introduced the bug, and think about it for 1min.
We are creating young people that have a very limited attention span, have no incentive to think about things, and have very pleasing metrics on the dora scale. When asked what their code is doing, they just don’t know. They can’t event explain the choices they made.
Honestly I think AI is just a very very sharp knife. We’re going to regret this just like regretting the mass offshoring in the 2000s.
I'm not surprised to see reports like this for open source projects where the bar for contributing is relatively low, but am surprised to see it in the workplace. You'd imagine that devs like that would be filtered out via the hiring process...
I'm a coding tutor and the most frustrating part of my job is when my students use LLM generated code. They have no clue what the code does (or even what libraries they're using) and just care about the pretty output. Whenever I try asking them questions about the code one of them responded verbatim "I dunno" and continued prompting ChatGPT (I ditched that student afterward). Something like Warp where the expectation is to not even interact with the terminal is equally bad as far as I'm concerned since students won't have any incentive to understand what's under the hood of their GUIs.
To be clear, I don't mind people using LLMs to code (I use them to code my SaaS project) but what I do mind is them not even trying to understand wtf is on their screen. This new breed of vibe coders are going to be close to useless in real world programming jobs which when combined with the push targeted at kids that "coding is the future" is going to result in a bunch of below mediocre devs both flooding the market and struggling to find employment.
> We are creating young people that have a very limited attention span
This isn't about age. I'm in my 40's and my attention span seems to have gotten worse. I don't use much social media anymore either. I see it in other people too regardless of age.
Cause the codebase wasn't in my scope originally and I had to review in emergency due to a regression in production. I took the time to understand the issue at hand and why the code had to change.
To be clear, the guy moved back a Docker image from being non-root (user 1000), to reusing a root user and `exec su` into the user after doing some root things in the entrypoint.
The only issue is that when looking at the previous commit, you could see that the K8S deployment using this image wrongly changed the userId to be 1000 instead of 1001.
But since the coding guy didn't take the time to take a cursory look at why working things started to not work, he asked the LLM "I need to change the owner of some files so that they are 1001" and the LLM happily obliged by using the most convoluted way (about 100 lines of code change).
Thank you for your explanation. I wondered what might motivate someone to devote so much time to something like this. An emergency due to a regression in production is, of course, a valid reason. And also thank you for sharing the details. It brought a sarcastic smile to my face.
Your rant is misplaced. It should be placed on hiring — candidates screening, on training — getting junior developers ready for their job, on engineering - code review and testing, and so on.
If anything, AI helps expose shortcomings of companies. The strong ones will fix them. The weak ones will languish.
Assuming you're right, I don't believe the effect will be at all dramatic. The vast majority of businesses are not in breakneck, life-or-death, do-or-die competition. The vast majority of business do quite a lot of languishing in a variety of areas, and yet they keep their clients and customers and even continue to grow despite not just languishing, but solid leaps backwards and even direct shots to the foot.
How do you propose that AI will do what you suggest, exposing shortcomings of companies? Right now, when it's being implemented, it's largely dictates from above with little but FOMO driving it, no cohesive direction to guide its use.
> We are creating young people that have a very limited attention span, have no incentive to think about things, and have very pleasing metrics on the dora scale. When asked what their code is doing, they just don’t know. They can’t event explain the choices they made.
This has nothing to do with AI, and everything to do with a bad hire. If the developer is that bad with code, how did they get hired in the first place? If AI is making them lazier, and they refuse to improve, maybe they ought to be replaced by a better developer?
I've just started immediately rejecting AI pull requests. I don't have time for that.
There's going to be a massive opportunity for agencies that are skilled enough to come in and fix all of this nonsense when companies realize what they've invested in.
Almost worse is AI bug reports. I've gotten a few of them on GitHub projects, where someone clearly pasted an error message into ChatGPT and asked it to write a bug report... and they're incoherent.
Some are using them to hunt bug bounties too. The CURL developer has complained about dealing with a deluge of bullshit reports that contain no substance. I watched a video the other day that demonstrated an example of a report of a buffer overflow. TL;DR: Code was generated by some means that included the libcurl header and called strlen() on a buffer with no null terminator, and that's all it did. It triggered ASAN and a report was generated from that, talking about how a remote website could overflow a buffer in the client's cookies using a crafted response. Mind you, the code didn't even call into libcurl once.
When neuralink becomes usable, the same hordes of people will rush to install the AI plugin so it can relieve their brains from putting in any effort. The rest will be given a difficult choice: do the same or become unemployable in the new AI economy.
We’re extremely pleased with Talos. Much more secure than Azure (our cloud of choice, unfortunately) which run a full-blown Ubuntu underneath. We haven’t run into any issues with Talos and upgrading is super easy with the talosctl tool, both Kubernetes and Talos version.
We currently have a thanos instance in each cluster. We could move it to a separate cluster to reduce some overhead, but the current approach works. We’re ingesting about 60Gi per day of metrics into the S3 bucket, so we might have to optimise that.
I have so many questions, it is a very good article!
My most important one is this: can I build a distributed k8s cluster with this?
I mean having fly machines in Europe, US and Asia acting as a solid k8s cluster and letting the kube scheduler do its job?
If yes then it is better than what the current cloud offerings are, with their region-based implementation.
My second question is obviously how is the storage handled when my workload migrates from the US to Europe: so I still profit from NVME speeds? Is it replicated synchronously?
Last but not least: does it support RWM semantics?
If all the answers are yes, kudos, you just solved many folk’s problems.
And it's not like they'd ever abuse that ability, like when someone pokes around in their car and discovers references to a new unannounced model, and then Tesla reaches in, force downgrades the vehicle to older software with no references, and then disables the ethernet port on the vehicle, and for a final fuck you disables its ability to ever get another update.
They'd never do that, except when they did do that.
It sounds like, in this case, the updates clobbered the ssh authorized keys (or equivalent in their system) and so now they cannot access the cars remotely. So they are going to have to go into the shop and have the authorized keys restored.
It says that the parental settings (when enabled!) are just letting children do whatever they want by default:
- buying overpriced objects - chat without any restriction online - play without interruption for long time
I think the first one is probably the most poignant: piping children into disguised gambling addiction by default seems like a major fault. Borderline illegal, if you ask me.
It looks a lot like a phony feature "let's add a parental control, it will make people feel like we're trustworthy and bring back more revenue. And please don't disable ingame purchases by default, this is our cash cow".