In the UK diabetes patients get automatically invited to followup appointments by the GP and eye screening tests every <n> months, where n depends on the severity of your condition. Adjustments to medication will happen at those appointments.
I currently have 10Tb of 1080p content and rescans takes a few seconds. The only thing that actually takes time is the intro detection on new content, but it's because I don't have a lot of compute power on the server hosting my Plex instance.
I just checked: my "com.plexapp.plugins.library.db" is 24Mb. Meanwhile, I have some custom apps with SQLite db's that are >10Gb and I don't have performance issues.
So I don't see how big a library have to be for its db to become a bottleneck?
If I read the whole thing correctly, people on the IRC channel didn't instruct the agent to set up the bloated AWS infrastructure, the agent did, and its operator clearly didn't review any of it.
That was the root cause for the costs, not actions by people on the IRC channel.
If it's a one off and needs no or minimal maintenance work afterwords, sure.
If it's intended to be actively maintained, then you probably should understand how things work, unless you want to wipe everything and start from scratch when the LLM creates such a mess that it can't be sorted out.
It's interesting user43928 that you only created your account here 19 days ago and that every one of your comments is pro AI. You don't comment on anything else. Also interesting that you promote Fable by name here (it was only released 2 days ago).
(Don't worry, I know I'm rowing against the tide with this comment. The AI people have decided to destroy the commons for a few more millions on top of the billions they have already been given. It's a shame.)
What's crazy is the prompt must be something like "pro-AI but still believable and measured", since its "fixed my iOS app albeit with back and forth". Interesting, they know the HN crowd for sure.
Is that surprising, considering I'm using AI a lot?
I have not hand written a single line of code in months on my side projects.
Obviously I am also interested in discussing the latest model. Your claim that I promote anything or otherwise don't engage here in good faith is both misplaced and against the site rules.
Since it couldn't reproduce the issue in the iOS simulator, I had to run it on the device, reproduce the issue, and provide the logs.
This went on for many rounds, during which I tried to steer it toward what I thought was the source of the bug, while the model mostly kept adding instrumentation and logs.
In the end the cause was not what I suspected, but reasonably close to it via another mechanism.
That's assuming the attacker informs Creative of the attack. A malicious actor could go to the showroom, update the firmware on all devices, and simply let them continue on as normal, waiting for a future opportunity to strike.
Let's hope Creative patches things before something like this happens.
For every Apple, there are 100 mom-and-pop companies who have nothing.
Even more so in the future when a software company can be launched by a farm of AI Agents with a founder at helm with no clue about computing or security.
What's debateable is how many of those companies actually need irontight security, because they are never realistically going to be targets of criminals and/or they have nothing valuable to steal/corrupt in the first place (other than the owner's pride).
I was pointing out how even Apple, a entity who by all rights should have top-notch security, is still absolutely hopeless in the face of commonplace commercial, profit-motivated attackers.
Massive, extremely well-resourced divisions supported by management in a technically competent organization that is actually trying to solve the problem struggle to produce at best middling security that is inadequate against commonplace threats. This is not a prioritization problem; even if you do “everything right” you are still vulnerable to run-of-the-mill commercial attackers. This is a fundamental capability problem, like how we can not make a net positive fusion reactor right now.
It is actually unfair to blame these companies for not having a fusion reactor because they “were not trying hard enough”. Actual security is not a easy problem, and it is a great disservice to portray it as one that is only unsolved due to dunderheads being in charge since it leads to underestimating what actually needs to be done.
That is not to say that you can not do dramatically worse than the “gold standard” and also that most organizations are actually incompetent; but the “gold standard” is still objectively grossly inadequate. You need to be dramatically better than the 4 trillion dollar software company to reach adequate against prevailing threats.
They have a website that can be used to host malware and/or seo link farms.
I still have nightmares about the contact form on my low-stakes personal website getting hijacked to use as a spam sender (because I used unsanitized input in mail headers).
I'm not seeing any of this, and I've have been using the same email address that forwards to gmail for decades at this point, and it's in every major email data breach.
I get, maybe, one actual spam email per year through gmail's spam filters.
I get more actual spam at my work email, which is not hosted by gmail, even though the email volume of emails sent from outside of my employer's network is orders of magnitude smaller than my personal email volume.
reply