brazzy

This is also now the first thing that I find it truly useful for in a non-coding role: researching how to do things in Azure, which I have not used before.

I'd say the opposite: Steam Machine is a console than can run Windows.

It makes sense as long as building hardware optimized for games is either significantly cheaper, or yields a better customer experience, than the available alternatives.

To most people, a separate gaming appliance is seen as convenience, not waste.

I really don't think having a custom CPU and hardware architecture different from PCs is the defining property of a gaming console. Nobody cares about that except developers and hardware nerds.

A console is a computer purpose-built and streamlined for playing games. No more, no less.

Yeah, we're pretty good at making pretty damn anything "fit for human consumption", including quite a few things that are outright poisonous if consumed unprocessed.

After being primed by the article, I read the author's name as "Shirtliker"...

Dude, they've already explicitly said they won't say.

I think the framing is a bit off. It sounds transactional and by the numbers.

It's really not possible to avoid that when, at the end of the day, you're doing it to make a living for yourself and your employees, not doing charity work in your free time because you enjoy it.

The bulk of your happy users will never contact you for support. But they are some of the most important users to talk to to improve the product.

Yep, but that's then called market research, not customer support.

The comment is basically doing exactly what it accused OP of doing: behaving as if the commenter has "singularly thought through every problem in an armchair" and knows better than OP who actually tried doing it.

Just like something that has no direct physical/chemical/biological mechanism to improve your condition can still do so if you believe it will (the placebo effect), it can also worsen your condition if you believe it will - that's the nocebo effect.

No, that's missing a crucial distinction. Writable CDs and DVDs used to be made with organic dyes, and yes, with BD-R the new LTH technology is inorganic and probably longer lasting.

But read-only media has always been pressed and then vacuum coated with aluminum. No dyes.

And the main component for both is always polycarbonate, which is organic, and probably won't last 100 years. There were some problems with early DVDs where the polycarbonate was not sealed propery, which led to oxydization of the aluminum layer, that's probably what GP observed. And of course that can happen through degradation as well.

In theory, it's possible to make these discs from glass, which should indeed last thousands of years. I've even heard that some glass music CDs were made for Hifi enthusiasts in Japan.

It really doesn't sound like a good example of the Doorman's Fallacy, which is about automation failing to provide the nonobvious benefits of a human doing the job.

It's just an example of automation done badly. Just have multiple QR codes to allow scanning in parallel. And if 6 people each paying for the own stuff creates a mess then sorry, that's just incredibly incompetent UX design. It should actually be easier to do it right when they're already ordering through separate devices!

Ohh, you're more cynical than me! My idea was that it's mostly early investors using FOMO to fleece later investors.

Had a very similar experience in Munich years ago. That time it was because a train engine on fire on the tracks leading out of the station...

If they reported it via the normal Google Maps reporting function, it doesn't actually make a difference, does it?

If you just have to accept courts will void 1% of your transactions (costing another 2% in legal fees) then you just make everything 5% more expensive to cover it.

That's an absurd exaggeration in regard to the issue at hand. Almost certainly far less than 1% of purchases by minors are voided, and NONE of those involve legal fees unless the seller chooses to go to court rather than refund.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet money that there are overall far less purchases refunded in Germany than in the USA.

Only if you actually need the 1300 cash, or think that you won't be able to sell it in the future.

The generally agreed limit (also established in court cases) is the amount of pocket money a child of the given age typically gets per month. For a 10 year old, that's about 20 EUR, for a 16 year old about 50 EUR. A console would definitely be too expensive, as would be big name concert tickets. Unless it's a recent AAA title, video games would be OK. No idea what Warhammer costs these days.

Most retailers are probably willing to take the risk of maybe having to do a refund, unless it's something really expensive (or perishable/consumable).

If I understand you correctly selling anything more expensive than cheap food to a child carries a high degree of risk in Germany.

Basically yes - the limit is generally considered to be the amount of monthly pocket money children typically get, so around 20 EUR for a 10 year old. And it would be possible for the seller to ask for a signed note of consent from the parent.

And of course the risk is limited to possibly having to revert the sale, which would be fairly rare for things that are just somewhat over that limit. Educated guess about how high the risk is for any given case are probably not hard.

If a child goes through the checkout at the grocery store with cash, can the parent march in and demand a refund because "he's underage so the contract is void"?

Depends on the jurisdiction, of course. But for example in German law, the contract is not void exactly because and only if it was about daily necessities of low value - the law does, in fact, care very literally and explicitly about those details. So it's completely unfit as an example to generalize, and the contract with AWS would in fact be void. Their problem if they don't verify users' identities and age sufficiently - and it's almost certainly a deliberate business decision not to do that in order to reduce friction. and occasionally write off an unenforceable bill as cost of doing business.

How was I implying they were malicious? "Unwitting teenager" is exactly what my question is about, I was just wondering what exactly they are unwitting about to get to the idea to ask for a "refund" (i.e. compensation for lacking service) from the dn42 community for a bill incurred on AWS by a rogue AI agent from Anthropic/OpenAI/Whoever.

JertLinc3522: the mistake was from AI agent not from Human, since it was the agent I should have refund

That really makes me wonder: is it coming from

A) a general sense of entitlement

B) seeing the agent as a human-like and able to bear responsibility

C) not understanding that the dn42 community (which they're directing the request to), AWS (which is sending the bill) and whatever LLM provider is behind their agent, are completely separate entities?

If everyone used a gpg-style web of trust based on key signing parties, it would become trivial to use a stolen or entirely fictious identity as well - there's zero chance those parties would actually check identities in ways that cannot easily be defeated by a determined and resourceful attacker.

It's kinda implicitly obvious that a messenger needs some kind of backend. Though admittedly using Github as a backend is such an unusual choice that I would consider it equally important to mention.

The protocol itself isn’t tied to GitHub and works with any Git remote.

If GitHub ever decided this wasn’t an acceptable use case, swapping the remote would be trivial.

Nope.

From the README:

"GitHub is the only working write provider right now. GitLab, GitVerse, Gitea, Forgejo, and other git hosts are protocol targets for future adapters. Today they are not finished write adapters."

If gpg-style web of trust became ubiquitous, it would require correspondingly less dedication.

And on the other hand, if this was actually working up to an xz style supply chain attack, the dedication would certainly not be lacking.

What you imagine behind the word may be quite different from what the article tried to describe with it.

That assumes you can write automated tests that reliably identify the mistakes over an entire codebase. Nice idea in theory. If it were actually possible, we would long since have generalized libraries of tests to catch every significant security and performance gotcha. What we have are static code analysis tools, fuzzers, etc. None of which have come close to eliminating security and performance problems. I don't see how AI somehome changes that.

Don't forget that you can adjust your requirements (either via plan or skill) to ensure the mistakes do not happen.

No, you can't. Adjusting prompts ensures absolutely nothing.

I dunno, for decades the policy by most of the West has been (a) keep Germany from re-arming in case they start WW3

That policy lasted less than a single decade. Germany was encouraged to re-arm as soon as 1950 inofficially and 1955 officially.