I am watching people who can't code build and deploy dashboards and sites with Claude Code (desktop app - they don't use the CLI), then go cap in hand to developer friends to get it hosted on a domain (rather than some Vercel or whatever URL).
Those people absolutely want to risk letting an agent buy and set up the domain.
This is not necessarily as blindly stupid as you might think. Many of these people know that this workflow is no good for writing code that does anything serious (i.e. storing data for people, taking payments, etc.) but there are a huge number of projects that are just websites, dashboard, data visualisations, etc. with static content and public APIs (Twitter is awash with them) and domains are cheap.
A decent minority of these are even quite cool or interesting.
So a lot of people want to put their vibe-coded weekend project behind a nice domain. Why not?
Let's say they buy a first time discounted $5 domain with a $9000 renewal (could the first renewals be made contractually mandatory?), potentially some other weird terms that the agent agreed to for them.
If I was ill spirited I'd go look at how the agents try to buy and setup juicy traps to milk it as much as I can for the first wave.
I would expect the value of a domain purchase + setup handled by an agent is the highest for people that are not very technical. I'd say that a well-engineered agent will do a better job avoiding botching it than your average non-dev.
If the rest of your deployment flow is via the agent, needing to switch over to a different context and open up a browser and login (or create an account) and buy the domain absolutely is a bump in the road.
Is a greed/not greed scale really useful to discuss company behaviors ?
I wanted to say I get what you mean, but even thinking about the company I root for the most, I can't think of a point where they're not driven by their desire to make a lot more money.
If your point is that there's good and bad ways to seek money, I'm not sure it's properly encompassed by "greed", which I interpret as the intensity of a desire, not its nature or validity.
To you "greed" might mean something else, but is it properly conveyed ?
The Seven Deadly Sins provide an interesting perspective to human psychology even in modern times. Greed / avarice is defined as wanting more than you need.
I was recently using an inexpensive paper shredder. I had an urge to put in too many papers at one time, which jams the shredder. Taking into account the time needed to unjam the shredder, the end result is that it takes more time for me to process the papers if I give in to my urge than if I resist the urge and only put in just the right amount of papers. Then I can claim that the "shredder is of bad quality", instead of seeing how I contribute to the problem.
As my aim was to shred papers efficiently, my "sin" (sin = to miss the mark, not to hit the aim) was greed, and the virtuous path is to successfully to resist the urge. The blessing I get from the virtuous path is the joy of the flow when I efficiently shred the papers.
Yesterday, I was in a shop when I was hungry, and I felt the urge to buy a large chocolate bar. Being hungry, it would have been a constant struggle not to eat all of it if I had bought it. Eating a whole large chocolate bar does not make me feel so good.
As my personal aim is to feel good, eating a whole large chocolate bar at one go is a sin in relation to that aim. I successfully resisted the urge to buy the large chocolate bar -- and did so by buying a small one. That way I did not "sin" too much towards my aim of feeling good, because small chocolate bar did not affect my well-being almost at all.
On the surface, it might appear more virtuous to not buy any chocolate bar. However, I know myself from prior experience that if I had "successfully" resisted the natural urge at the shop, it might have caused me to later to be unable to later resist the urge to buy a large chocolate bar from a kiosk.
So knowing myself to be the imperfect human being in these scenarios, buying a small chocolate bar at the shop was actually more aligned with my aim of feeling good than not buying it, because the end result was more aligned with my aim of feeling good.
Modern psychology would probably say that this urge is in my superego. Maybe as a child, I learned that I don't usually get what I need, so when something is available, I feel the urge to take as much as I can -- i.e. greed is something that I will encounter in many things that I do, keeping me from hitting the mark. As this is very common way humans miss the mark and deeper in the psychology, it is a Deadly Sin.
Some theological and psychological perspectives posit that the belief that this urge is a part of me -- i.e. I identify with the urge, I believe that "I am greedy" -- is actually part of the problem. So a better formulation would be instead of "WHO decides how much I need" to ask "WHAT IN ME decides how much I need". And then, what is a healthy and useful relationship towards those urges. And it may be different in different circumstances, hence resisting the urge to put in too many papers, but replacing the urge with a lesser one in case of chocolate bars.
The point might not be to learn to "control" the urge -- we can learn from system theory that excessive control might cause a backlash -- in terms of some systems even literally. More healthy relationship is often to just observe -- and then learn how such urges affect my well-being -- i.e. to learn more about myself. Often the observation itself is enough to have an effect.
We can take a corporate analogy (literally, corpus = body) and ask, what in organizations (again, organization has the same literal root as organism) cause them to be "greedy". In other words, what drives organizations to have an urge for excessive profits that they ignore the harms they cause to employees, society at large or even customers (i.e. enshittification). This urge appears very similar as the urge in humans.
That question will lead to other interesting questions about politics, economics etc. For example, you can ask, what is the aim of such corporations, and whether that aim produces results aligned with the aims of societies at large, etc.
maybe long term vs. short term is the key idea. apple, for example, could rake in bountiful measures in the short term if they ventured away from their boutique-electronic-consumer-goods niche. in the long run it would hurt their bottom line to do so
Greedy people put the desire for more money above the welfare of the business, themselves, and other. Greedy people literally put their desire for more personal wealth above the very lives of others.
Greed/not greed is a very fair way of putting it. One can operate a business that requires profit without wanting to destroy everyone and everything that stands in the way of more money.
I think there's one more factor that is crucially important — greedy people lack long-term vision, and care a lot more about money now than they do about potentially much more money in the future.
I suppose it's kind of interesting that you could measure greed as an unusually high discount rate for the time value of money?
You need a lot of support to stay in power, even in a democracy. Impeachment procedures for instance exist for that reason. No one rules alone, it's never one, nor even a small bunch of idiots.
Probably 'we reserve the right to train our next version of smart autocomplete based on the text you send to the current version of smart autocomplete'
Which is not different in kind from “we use your source code to improve our products” and is functionally identical to “we own your output because you use our editor.”
How do people continually fall for this. Refusing to look at the playbook that has been run time and time again and then getting offended when it is too late.
They don't. Paragraph 4.2, "Customer's Ownership of Output" [0]. I recite verbatim below for the sake of clarity.
These are about processing the data, not owning it. They need to process the data eg to provide llm-based tab-completion. A completion is derivative work, and it is also owned by the customer, as it says below.
> The Service may generate specifically for, and make available to, Customer text and written content based on or in response to Customer Data input into the Service (collectively, “Output”), including through the use of technologies that incorporate or rely upon artificial intelligence, machine learning techniques, and other similar technology and features. As between the Parties, to the greatest extent permitted by applicable Laws, Customer owns all Output and Zed hereby irrevocably assigns to Customer all right, title, and interest in and to the Output that Zed may possess. For the avoidance of doubt, Zed and its AI Providers will not retain or use Customer Data for the purpose of improving or training the Service or any AI Provider products, except to the extent Customer explicitly opts-in on Zed’s specific feature to allow training and/or such improvement (such as fine-tuning) and is solely for the benefit of Customer.
It's covered in the first 10~20min or so of the game, and is really a minor side point.
Off topic, put P5 as a game doesn't really care about spoilers much, there is one specific story telling gimmick that will screw with you if you're really sensitive to these kind of things.
Still take it with a huge grain of salt. Even official advice usually has severe limitations due to its broadness or straight politics, so medical analysis from random blogs truely isn't the best.
Acetoaminophen also has issues for people with weaker stomachs (I can attest), and will come with additional medication to cover these effects as needed. The whole "Is it safe yes/no" table has many asterixes and might be outright false depending on the how you look at it.
Never take anything that written on the medications with a grain of salt. Disregard everything that you have read online. The medicine instructions are your single source of truth
To a point I think the blame lies on the tech companies not doing their jobs. The iPad could have been that kind of joy and amazement machine for many, except it never was allowed to entrench on the mac or the iPhone.
The Steamdeck was a breath of fresh air, the whole Steam frames and cube could have been a big deal.
They are leaps and bounds ahead for people who want their specific formula or don't really care about computers.
Apple has always been a "our way or the highway" brand, we can at least keep in mind that 3 laptop formulas only differenciated by size and thickness won't cut it for everyone on the planet.
A sports motorcycle from 2026 is made for people who don't really care about motorcycles. The engine is super tight, performant, doesn't leak oil, doesn't give you any problems, doesn't need tuning or maintenance outside of regular check-ups. You get on it and go. And it's much safer because of automatic safety systems.
Sports motorcycles used to be for people who care about motorcycles. Breakdowns, unsafe, finicky, tuning the carburetor if you went between mountains and sea level. You didn't just get on it and go. You had to know about motorcycles if you were an owner. And each individual model had their individual quirks.
I am with you, but I similarly as the earlier sibling comment disagree Macs are like option 2, and not because of lack of do-it-all quality: just that their choices are suboptimal.
Glossy screens, crappy keyboards, sharp edges, large weight are all single, terrible choices that one has to accept, manage or tune (there was recently a blog post shared where someone files edges on their MacBook; you constantly need to position yourself so light sources are not pointing at the screen...).
They have their good sides, but I am disagreeing that they are the ultimate laptops when they so clearly aren't.
A sports bike doesn't work for every task nor is it ideal for every task neither. A diesel truck has more horse power and is more customizable, if that's what you need.
There's a curve. Beginners with pristine gears are babying it, but veterans just don't bump their camera everywhere nor drop them, they have the bags that fit what they do, use straps (or not) that fit them and there's little to hurt their camera.
Event photographers are another kind, camera throwing is part of the job.
I wonder if you feel the same about cars, expecting expert chauffeurs to have bumps all over their car ?
> but veterans just don't bump their camera everywhere nor drop them, they have the bags that fit what they do
Most veterans I know would not be seen dead with one of those bags that shout LOOK AT ME I AM A CAMERA BAG ....
The theft risk is just too great these days.
Most of the time they will take a standard bag, with their other stuff in it (e.g. change of clothes etc.) and just dump their camera and a couple of lenses in there. Either padded by their spare clothes or with a velcro-neoprene camera wrap cloth.
That solution also enables them to move fast instead of having to make sure everything goes into the right stupid slot in a camera bag.
So for example if it starts raining heavily (or if they have to get through airport security) it can be done quickly and efficiently.
I made a car analogy because I didn't get the sense that you were in groups of photographers yourself, looking at other people's gear. I spent a decent amount of time with birders, being out in the field for day in day out, climbing, crawling, hiding, and their gear was far from beaten up.
I mean, it takes some effort to dent our current magnesium alloy bodies, you won't get scratches by laying it a bit fast on a counter table or hitting your bag's zipper.
What concrete points makes you put macos as more open ?
reply