tyre

Sure, but accounting existed before Excel. That doesn't mean excel didn't change things tremendously.

It's because it's opaque. Signing up and seeing a page like `/companies/366` unnecessarily leaks company data. Sometime it's a huge deal, sometimes not; not here to litigate that. But it's trivially avoidable.

Do you care about users knowing when another business was put into the system (e.g. how long they've been with you"? If yes, v4. If no, v7.

v4 is less efficient but more private.

So you have a second, opaque unique identifier for the frontend to fetch? At that point why not just use a single column (UUID)?

You don't have to handle collisions and I don't believe that multiple Redditors have experienced this. If they have, it's an issue with the implementation and not UUIDs.

The math is simply not in there favor, by a number so large we cannot conceive of it in our tiny brains.

UUIDs have other useful properties. For example, they don't expose counts (e.g. how many customers you have.) They make URL / resource guessing impossible.

ids in the form of `[prefix]_[uuid stripped of dashes]` is ideal for most use cases. It should be the default the way Postgres is the default. Any deviation have good reason.

Let's say you have a remote client connect to a url to the database. You stream a download through there. You close the connection when you're finished.

No commands run.

No persistent access.

Lawyers are amazing.

Edit: Yes, based on the comment by dherls, this is how they're getting around it. Streaming replication is not commands run by the attackers (it's your own system doing the exfiltration!)

Not really. You can still put limits on the rate or aggregate dollar amount of refunds or transfers. You can put alerting on spikes of approvals. You can put back pressure that forces manual review. You can have ML models detecting aberrant behavior against historical data.

No one reasonable is saying, “hook up this model to do anything it wants with no other system available.”

Will people fuck it up? Absolutely! But, “the model has to be perfect or it will bankrupt a company” is more cynical than reality.

> Search API finds web pages for a query and returns structured results. It is powered by DeepSeek's in-house search engine.

Looks like they've built (or are building) their own index and return cached results. What you do with that information is up to you. If you want to visit the live page, you'd need to find a way around bot detection.

One reason (not the only one!) people use Anubis is to prevent the endless flood of requests from AI companies. If Deepseek scrapes once every few hours, that helps the website owner with the traffic problem while allowing access.

If they don't want to allow access, my guess is that deepseek's search crawler respects robots.txt but I don't know.

They’re not really. They make the things useful for two classes of users: Mac Studio for people running models locally and Siri backed by Gemini for voice interaction.

They’ll likely embed text models more deeply in the future, but the history of “Apple Intelligence” doesn’t give a lot of hope that they’ll nail it.

So they’re not selling shovels (a precursor to making the thing) but products and services to use it.

I think it was ousted by a fast food chicken app fwiw. Couldn’t tell you why.

Have they fully implemented the Gemini-backed Siri?

I will say that I asked Siri some questions recently that I was pretty sure it would fumble and it answered directly.

“Does brown go with charcoal in clothing?”, for example, didn’t fall back to “I’ve found some web results. I can send them to your iPhone”. It actually answered.

It still has random nonsense regularly, but the “ask a question, get an actual answer” is new to me.

There's another version where a stats professor divides people into two groups. One group flips a coin 50 times and writes on a whiteboard the results. The other comes up with 50 results.

They leave the room and when they come back immediately know which is which. Specifically because of the over-alternation that yours mentioned. A string of HHHHHH is exactly as likely as HTHTHT, but people don't intuit that.

It might not be that someone is more random than an RNG, but that the distribution of numbers in your 190 vs. theirs appears more "random". It's a limited sample size.

If yours happened to contain consecutive digits or common ones (ending in zero, significant numbers like 911 or 42 or 69), that would imply less randomness even if it's actually the result of "real" RNG.

Agreed. It's a fun cultural tidbit but not really a useful benchmark for model capabilities.

It would be great if this could also be a thermostat. For $300 you could get rid of Nest (etc) while adding all of these other use cases.