lmm

Individuals get hacked and their bitcoins taken so often that it doesn't make the news.

A lot of networks still just do dumb port blocking. Yes, any network that is making a serious effort to prevent ssh will succeed. But a lot aren't.

> at $156B market cap someone sure is making money.

So 50x Pets.com or 2x Enron.

> judging a mega-corporation on lemonade-stand level accounting is a fool's errand.

Disagree. Unit economics matter and can help you cut through a lot of hype and nonsense. "Where's the money coming from?" is always a good question to ask. Sure, sometimes a megacorp loses money on each transaction and makes it up on float or whatever, but that's at least worth knowing if that's what's going on.

> What's bad about them? There is a sensible default and users (in particular those with poor eyesight) will adjust them to their needs.

16pt is a sensible default on some screens and very much not on others.

> users (in particular those with poor eyesight) will adjust them to their needs

In the real world they won't though, much as we might both wish otherwise.

> What's wrong with the following CSS snippet for example?

It doesn't achieve a reasonable readable font size which was presumably the goal. Your padding won't be the right size for all screens either. (And personally I hate excessive line height).

> respect the browser's default font size

The browser's defaults are also bad. But they shouldn't be. The browser is in a position to actually fix this; the webdev isn't.

What a pointlessly provocative and unproductive thing to say.

I am in the same boat as GP, and I wonder if it's one of the reasons I migrated hard to ebooks and online magazines/newspapers as soon as that became possible and never looked back.

There is no way to specify a good size in CSS - a size that looks good on current computers will be too big on old computers, and a size that looks good on old computers looks too small on current ones. Browsers and users are the ones who can fix this.

Only any who hypocritically want protection for their own models (are there any?). The morality of scraping everyone is arguable; it's when you object to being scraped back that you reveal yourself as a scoundrel.

This isn't about the app being unfinished, it's about Google deliberately half-assing support for open standards. They want you to be stuck in their calendar ecosystem so they make sure there's more friction adding a calendar from outside than adding someone else's Google calendar.

It has other uses. But the point is that saying "we" when one is not, in fact, a sovereign, is extremely pretentious.

> I literally can't imagine generating a script with an LLM without testing it at all.

Then you're extremely unimaginative as well as unusually fastidious.

Certainly someone - several someones - are generating lots of scripts and not testing them, given the PRs I'm seeing.

Talking about the "royal we" is a correct, established (if somewhat sarcastic) way to complain about this kind of usage. It highlights the presumptiveness of the author in their use of "we".

No, that is exactly GP's complaint. Their whole point is that OP has written things like "we throw everything at a model and hope it gives us what we imagined, without ever having to understand how any of it actually works" when the honest statement would be "I throw everything at a model and hope it gives me what I imagined, without ever having to understand how any of it actually works".

> IT projects that cost billions are incomprehensible to me, outside of frontier work

Getting a large bureaucracy to agree on a question where any answer will disadvantage some members of it is frontier work. No-one has a good general solution. Very few people even have approximate solutions for a few special cases.

> is there no space in the market for a good software consultancy? Or are they just outcompeted for getting the contract?

You can't grow big enough to bid on these big projects and stay good.