Does this mean there is no testing environment?

Generally on multi-tenant SaaS kind of systems you do have testing environments, but they're filled with garbage data, plus they are usually running pre-release versions that aren't yet ready for the light of day. It's where QA and CI/CD operates. Sales demos are generally done on a production environment, but on dedicated tenants that are set up with "nice looking" well-organized data (e.g. company is named Contoso, users have names like "Jason Anderson" and "Maria Ramirez"). Testing environments have users with names like "1111111" and "`<script>alert(window.domain);`"

I think it's probably a just laziness here, which makes some sense - it would be easy to set up 5 Flock cameras on the sales demo tenant sitting in a storage room at HQ, but it would make for incredibly uncompelling demo. Rather than set up a pipeline to run stock footage in as a camera feed, they got lazy and used real tenants.

There's an obvious answer... just set up the camera in the conference room where you're running the demo.

Sounds like the testing stage is sticky? It could exist without the tooling to reset it to a known baseline and/or create multiple environments which would enable safe demos.

Maybe. It also lets people build things that never would have existed before. My hobby is competitive pinball. There are multiple new stat and tournament tracking apps that have been vibe coded by people who never would have written code by hand.

So..?

If it was genuinely worth building before, you would have. Having some kind of cost involved is a force of nature that invokes one to decide whether it is worth doing it or not.

Moreover these activities only serve to enhance the wealth and interests of the few. Congrats. Don’t forget to look in the mirror.

It’s not operated for profit. People can just solve (some of) their problems by talking to computers.

What are you talking about? Llm producers are not a charity.

Obviously. You didn’t read correctly. Try again.

The difficulty in measuring productivity is the attribution. How do you know the new plow enabled growth?

because trend and changing fewer variables.

If you could actually prove that you wouldn’t be posting it on HN, you’d be shopping for a mega yacht.

What?

Theres hundreds of MBAs who know this and it’s used to squeeze the workforce.

Thats why its the default thinking from them, because it works sometimes.

I think you missed something.

Define malware.

The scams this directly targets are well known and common. Someone gets a phishing message, they have someone install some sort of malware on the device, then their bank accounts are drained into some offshore account never to be seen again.

That's why there's a requirement for restarting the phone and waiting 24 hours.

The restart ends the connection for any remote-access software or phone call that might be driving the operation -- and the 24 hour wait period breaks the "urgency" part of the scam that prevents other people who know better from stopping the vicim from continuing.

Malware is whatever Google says it is.

What you’re describing is outsourcing. It’s still possible with on-prem or cloud VMs. You just hire a contractor provide those services.

You are correct but I don't know about the cost structure. Also you have to somehow verify that they do a good job. You sometimes only see bad work when something goes wrong. Also you have to first find a company that provides the service.

The cloud makes it simple. They offer you managed service X. They hire experts for service x and you pay a part of the cost on top of your infra cost. No searching. No vetting. You just use the service.

I see the why this might be attractive. It isn't to me. But the pencil pushers like it.

Postgres has COMMENT ON to help with this but descriptive names are helpful.

But you’re not a chipmunk.

You’re probably thinking of the 70 Series Land Cruiser which has been in continuous production since 1984. Toyota does modernize the vehicle from time to time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Land_Cruiser_(J70)

Not for half price.

What does it do better by predating OSHA? Are there liability concerns or does it have just enough safety to be insured economically?

Wasn't designed with the assumption that when someone gets hurt lawsuits and fines could/would fly and so there's a lot less of the manufacturer covering it's ass in the design.

There's nothing to keep you from putting it on two wheels and the transition from on the ground to off the ground is pretty graceful and operator friendly whereas the newer lifts rely on a pressure release valve to keep them from lifting that much and (presumably) because they were always expected to be far from ragged edge their weight distribution is not really proper for that. The counterweight is substantially taller so how hard it pushes down is reduces more quickly as the lift comes up so it lifts tire further (and is more likely to dump the load or go over). This also means the old lift has a way lower ass pucker factor when doing stuff at max height. The real nuisance is when braking though. Yeah you "shouldn't" brake with the load up but operators who get good will raise the load at speed as they are coming in to put a pallet of stuff on top of another pallet of stuff and then when they brake it can get sketchy. The new lifts do corner much better unloaded though so I guess you could be much faster zipping through a warehouse on a new lift (but what workplace would permit that? And top speeds are about the same so there's no benefit in a big outdoor workplace like say an airport or shipyard).

There's no seat switch or other safety interlocks so you aren't putting a ton of wear on it if you're constantly getting out to fiddle with stuff. This also means you can do "unsafe" things like stand beside it and wrangle something and just reach in and make the mast go up and down. While in a textbook world this is "bad" and you "should only pick pallets" and "everything should be strapped to the pallet" in the real world you make all that back and more because it means you can use the forklift as a glorified engine hoist/shop crane without a helper. Hook and chain operations are made much safer/more reliable by this too since the operator can be sure things are good and is not tempted to half ass it to save the time of getting back out. Sure you could always add a helper but that's dangerous too because one person doing stuff near equipment and one person running equipment opens the door to miscommunication related injury that can't really happen among one person.

I'm sure "at scale" the new lift is safer, but safer for who? In what operating context? How big is the difference?