Is that actually true today? When I was doing EDI stuff ~20 years ago, it was mostly done using FTP, with some forward-thinking orgs moving to SFTP or (HTTPS-based) AS2.
I see that Wikipedia claims that "X.400 is quite widely implemented[citation needed], especially for EDI services", and that might once have been the case - but I doubt it was particularly widespread even at the time that article was first written. It's worth noting that that [citation needed] tag dates from October 2008!
In addition to all the sensible reasons others have pointed out, if you crash at a high enough speed without a seatbelt you become a projectile. If you are in the back seat when this happens, you are most certainly a danger to those in the front seats.
If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
> In addition to all the sensible reasons others have pointed out, if you crash at a high enough speed without a seatbelt you become a projectile.
This pales in comparison to the projectile that your care already is.
In any case, just work out the expected level of danger, convert to monetary units, and tax people who don't wear seatbelts.
> If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
Tax non-seatbelt-wearers ahead of time. Or make sure everyone has insurance, get the money from the insurance, and beancounters at the insurace will make sure premiums go up for non-seatbelt-wearers. (And use the full force of the law against people without insurance. Or have some clever mechanism design, like selling default insurance with petrol, but give people with proven insurance a discount on that, etc.)
That begs the question by assuming that a belief system must be religious. Much of philosophy is about building a belief system that doesn’t depend on a religion at all.
For starters, “treat others well because everyone deserves our empathy” is completely compatible with atheism.
In the incident case, it's a post-mortem on the incident. The incident itself is (hopefully) resolved and can now be dissected to learn about what went wrong and how things can improve in the future.
That's what a post-mortem implies to me in the tech industry. A thing happened, it's over now, here are the lessons we learned to take into the future.
If you read the article, way down at the end he pulls it around. He means it's dead as a serious os that vendors can ship. It'll live on for hobbyists but you better be prepared for a bumpy ride as the YOLO crew hits send on increasingly larger amounts of stuff before its ready and continue to act unprofessionally (my paraphrase, but I believe I captured it).
Wouldn't the obvious solution to this problem to stop using agents that don't respect your usage limits instead of trying to build sketchy containers around misbehaving software?
Yeah I don’t understand this problem, who uses so many agents at the same time in the first place?
And if this is really a problem, why not funnel your AI agents through a proxy server which they all support instead of this hacky approach? It would be super easy to build a proxy server that keeps track of costs per day/session and just returns errors once you hit a limit.
The downside to doing this is that you'll sound like an LLM. LLM-generated text is very obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension and once detected will cause some people to summarily dismiss the sender as a bot.
This is more than acceptable if it allows you to confidently send of an email in less than a minute that would otherwise take you 30 minutes of agony to write and still not be confident about.
Also, these aren't cold calls. The recipients aren't critical about how "botty" the email sounds.
I tried "show me Portugal" and it showed me Madeira, which is an island that is indeed part of Portugal, but I was expecting it to go for the mainland.
Repeating the prompt alternates between Madeira and Açores which is again, technically correct, but in this case not the best kind of correct.
The thing I don't understand is the concept "majority" in the crypto space. There is no way to prove that one person doesn't control the majority of the voting power.
If I own a large portion of the supply split across several hundred wallets and I vote one way, smaller owners may be influenced by the appearance of hundreds of votes being cast one way vs the other. We see this in the real world, where some people are willing to just vote for what they think is the majority sentiment when they don't have strong opinions on a matter.
I've heard arguments along the lines of "those with more invested into the project should have more voting power" but that to me just sounds like an incentive to centralize.
If I'm a small player, I either go with the majority or see my investment become worthless, or in a fantasy world where crypto is used for anything other than wild speculation, I see my utility greatly diminished as I'm no longer able to interact with the "majority". Sure, I might still be able to interact with those left behind, but the pressure to move over to the majority fork is going to pull more and more people towards that.
I see federation of content as a much more approachable means to re-decentralization of the internet.
We still rely on centralized DNS. As we still rely on ISPs to make sure our packets can leave our local networks, and on international treaties to make sure we can communicate with networks in other countries, but unless you want everyone to start developing and maintaining a decentralized physical computer network for free, we'll always need to trust a number of institutions to do this thing where we can communicate with someone on the other side of the world within a few milliseconds.
Voting has nothing to with the consensus mechanisms to determine who is allowed to choose what block is appended to the chain. Why are you bringing up "voting" into the discussion here?
The whole argument falls apart for me when it's acceptable to 404 when an api version isn't found, while it's not acceptable to 404 when an employee isn't found.
Why would we handle not finding an employee differently from not finding an API version?
If we're saying employees/100 should return 200 because it "could" exist, but doesn't at the moment, then why would we ever return anything other than 200? Any route "could" come to exist at a future point.
I am ambivalent about 200 for employee not found, but that is clearly a different category of error compared to an api version not existing. for employee not found, the error is purely in data: there is no responsive data, but the request itself was made to an existing endpoint/url/route correctly. no api version existing is an improperly made request: whether or not there is data cannot be determined as the request itself was problematic, so we never even got there.
Yes, it is a pain to manage. Yes, it is all still mostly running on 20+-year-old hardware and software.
It is slightly ironic that the main way we communicate X.400 addresses between parties is through modern email.
reply