I think it's mostly because the output is often confidently incorrect. So we need to spend effort fact checking each time we use it, which defeats the purpose of asking the machine in the first place.
Read the comment more carefully. There are two parts. 1. their prediction for the future, and 2. their personal habit. Their personal habit does not prove their prediction for the future. I'm suggesting the prediction is the myth mentioned in the blog post, because it literally is.
I highly doubt that. It's giant market and with these custom small sites made by third parties you actually want to have client owned hosting and third parties who deploy to that hosting. Clients have learned to separate these otherwise the third party can have huge leverage (your business and all data is ours).
There's still a very big market of people for whom being given a VPS with ssh access and a command line is beyond their technical capability or comfort level.
Ever seen the upsell offers in the check-out workflow for hosting packages that come when you buy a new .com domain from any major registrar? All those are shared hosting packages where everything is done through some sort of web gui.
I'm especially curious how much small-scale shared hosting is left. The big companies like EIG are certainly still around, but the little one-off hosting companies are much less common.
Facebook started out PHP; but they ship-of-theseus'ed it into Hack by replacing the standard library, the language, and the runtime engine, so now it's a totally different thing with only a few superficial similarities (FWIW IMO Hack is much better than PHP, I'm sad that it never gained traction...)
There are a lot of things that have been up for decades. The ROI on moving a simple PHP or static website to new hosting situation hasn’t been that compelling… though that could change. Thing is, I suspect most users of shared hosting which is Cpanel’s bread and butter are not reading the latest cybersecurity news.
My partner works at a nonprofit and they paid some consultant for a chat bot. The next month they were surprised they got a $2000 bill for the API use and at first wondered if the bot was really popular. The analytics reveled that very few conversations were happening.
The consultants apparently had the bot load and fed it an immediate prompt which greeted the user. This was happening on every page load. Bad consultants, bad bot.
The amount of consultants that are very known and have large presence on developer communities and give a lot of talks and have no idea how to approach real world problems is impressive.
I talk to a lot of people not in tech and the divide is clear: they hate AI, they hate AI art, and they hate AI companies. They seem to hate it all less if they are unsure if it's AI, but that's a different discussion.
The event produces a huge amount of trash too. Every year you can see videos on youtube of people taking their moop out of the playa and just dumping it wherever (shopping malls, parking lots, the side of the road) in Nevada and California. The ethos only happens at the event and then all bets are off. I say that as an ex-burner.
Well you can hack the people. Send them on wild goose chases, make them simplify their documents, start quizzing them on the contents of their documents, make them do presentations, the list goes on. Getting hazed for doing shitty work sucks and people will catch on.
Heh, I could do it for my subordinates (and I don't need to, I made pretty clear with them that I have zero tolerance for this shit and they seem to comply), but for other teams it's not so easy, the environment is pretty brutal in terms of politics, if I start sabotaging the "SUCCESS" of some dumb BD, the manager will comply with me and the CTO.
This quote from the original blog post resonates with me:
> The room had been arranged in such a way that saying so was not a contribution; his managers were too invested in the appearance of momentum to want the appearance disturbed.
Yes, I know, I should learn to be more subtle. I just don't have the energy for this stuff. I am tired.
There isn't exactly a lot of design freedom in a black rectangle with a screen a keyboard and a touchpad. A real Macbook copy would include Macbook misfeatures, like:
- control key in wrong place
- camera notch
- half sized arrow keys
It doesn't look exactly the same. Sure, if it had a tiny touchpad with separate buttons or missing indent so that it's inconvenient to open the lid or didn't have stereo speakers or was really thick then it would look even more different than an MBP... If one company nails some design elements before others, why should everyone who gets those elements too be blamed for copying it.
It doesn't. It looks like a slick laptop, but it is as similar to Macbook Pro as it is to a modern Thinkpad. The hinge in particular stands out and looks like a Thinkpad hinge as opposed to the hidden hinge of a Macbook. Other than that, there is not much design freedom left when the whole industry has kinda agreed that a big trackpad and rounded corners is the way to go.
reply