The website is the marketing for the product, most people see that first, and they wont go further if your front door is festooned with goofball stuff.
Someone who is incredibly pedantic and also specific about their word use, who doesn't have a problem with four different descriptions because they all elide to the same thing. ie someone who should have more sympathy AND empathy even if they can disambiguate the terms (for their audience.)
Current article title: Authorization terminology is a mess: Let's fix it
That being said, GP mentions OIDC Connect, which is indeed a standard using jargon, just like the IETF uses jargon, and when a standard uses or invents jargon, it makes an effort to define that terminology, and also delineate when it's being used.
If someone believes that standards and specifications are written by pedantic people who are precious about the definitions of words, they may also be likely to fire their attorney during a court case, because that attorney just refuses to use plain English in the courtroom.
You should. It's their fault for picking a bad vendor. It's their fault for not finding someone with taste to solve the problem. Fundamentally its their business, pretending you can blame someone else for your ultimate accountability is stupid.
Nobody is forcing you to take poison, and saying "Well Microsoft promised me it isn't poison!!!" at this point, decades into it selling poison, doesn't make much sense.
They didn't pick the bad vendor, the herd did. They all go to the same conferences, attend the same vendor lunches and buy the same garbage. And today, most of the IT managers are not technical at all. They have art degrees and have never been technology practitioners.
Literally anyone off the street can be a "decision maker" in technology today. Just buy what everyone else is buying and collect a huge paycheck while working remote. People who understand tech and sort of know what they are doing, are not included.
No ... THEY very much did. In fact the whole idea of their job is that they are responsible for the outcomes. Seriously. Listen to their speeches. That gets repeated and repeated and repeated, again and again and again.
Of course, if insurance companies were rapidly held to account by courts, a core function of the courts if there ever was one, there would be no problem here.
Which is probably why most governments are defunding the courts.
As someone whose spent ~5k hours playing DF you are right, every person I have ever talked to about it has liked the idea and like 1/50 has gone on to play it for >10 hours.
Unfortunately we won't get a chance to see whether kagi could make it work before SEO was a thing, so this isn't a fair comparison.
(Not defending kagi necessarily, I've never tried it, no opinion on how it fares on today's Internet but comparing it to how 1999 Google did on the 1999 internet is absurd)
And some of them have Super powerful side effects - I had a 3 day violent psychotic break I have no memory of, but I did get to wake up strapped to a bed!
Malarone? Interesting, because that's supposed to be the prophylactic therapy with the mildest side effects. I have taken it many times and have never had any, and – up until now – I had also never heard of anyone having some.
No, the entire marketing campaign for these models is "it automatically has godlike powers to exploit almost any software" - if you don't air gap such a capability you are inherently allowing shit to go down, any other interpretation is "OAI folks are too stupid to design a proper test".
> "it automatically has godlike powers to exploit almost any software"
No it isn't. Random people on sites like this mock them as if they're talking about having godlike powers. Each new model is "merely" a step up from what came before, the steps are frequent and rapidly improving, and just recently (in more than one AI company) crossed a threshold where that improvement made the tests dangerous.
But even well before "godlike"*, there's plenty of research about how to cross air gaps.
> "OAI folks are too stupid to design a proper test".
Such binary thinking.
It's very easy to say things are "obvious" after the fact. People do that all the time, e.g. how the Bay Of Pigs invasion was never going to work, or like the Zune wasn't a good product-market fit.
The term "illegal immigration" got moved to "people who have proper papers and did everything legally but were granted access by someone I don't like" - anyone who was an informed voter could see that "against illegal immigration" was just red meat for the base.
Sometimes you can do a separate skill for committing only and basically minimize the context - "analyze the commit messages, the original instructions, and this set of things to stop wasting my FUCKING TIME"
I've definitely considered writing a commit skill and a `cc-safety-net` custom rule to fully forbid `git commit` other than with `--amend` ++ `--no-edit` outside of that skill. Hm, maybe that's a task for an upcoming weekend.
reply