Do you live in the United States? If so the only reasonable option for a router at this exact point in time is to run your own using opnsense or PFsense. You can buy an x86 mini pc with with a couple high bandwidth NICs and it’ll do the job

I mean I agree to an extent but also of course he would say that. Him saying this means less than nothing.

Fire trucks will gladly push a Waymo out of the way, but an ambulance doesn’t have that kind of horsepower, not to mention the fact that purposely colliding with another vehicle with a patient in the back is a great way to be sued and probably lose your qualifications

If we have to maintain a national road system without charging people to drive on it, everyone will still be stuck paying for the roads. So since that would evidently be non-viable then there will be no ambulances and no roads. So have fun dragging yourself in your belly to the nearest ambulance-train, because nothing else would be cost effective lol

we wouldn’t need to repair them every five years

We don’t need to do that now…

So you’d prefer to have less mobility, pay more in taxes, displace millions of low income rural people across the country, uprooting them from their homes and thrusting them into poverty? That would also effectively destroy the countries agriculture industry as an obvious knock-on effect which would make groceries even less affordable than they are today, overpopulate cities, make it much easier for the government to surveil and control your movement and ability to gather and demonstrate, etc etc.

Thats a no from me. You can keep your dystopia to yourself lmao

I would predict that ambulances would cost a bit more due to higher fuel and registration costs, but I’d come out ahead because an ambulance ride is rare, compared to the income and property taxes that I pay every year.

So you think you’d come out ahead in this scenario where private cars don’t exist but roads still need to for emergency services?

So in your scenario where you as a taxpayer still have to pay for the roads to exist for things like emergency services (Invalidating your own entire original point, because you don’t seem too keen on my ambulance-train idea for some reason), but now there are no taxes being paid by the users of the road? No, you would just pay more comparatively as a non driver than the ex-drivers. The only way to come out ahead would be for emergency services, mail, and other logistics systems you rely on every day would to operate via means that don’t need to be subsidized, the only one of which are freight train tracks. (Passenger rail is out of the question in this scenario obviously).

Especially since the overwhelmingly-likely way that I might break my leg is getting hit by a car

Actually the overwhelmingly-likely way you might break your leg is by falling. Either from a height, at speed (like from your bike) or just plain old tripping).

Walking and biking require no subsidies, by the way.

Sure they do. Many sidewalks are maintained by your local government. The ones that aren’t, usually because they charge the homeowner with this responsibility, are often eligible for subsidies and financial assistance programs. If nobody is driving, taking busses, or passenger rail because they can’t be supported by a user-paying system, lots of people will need bike at a minimum, so just sidewalks won’t work. You’d need to maintain some sort of “road” to accommodate all the bikes. Theres really no way you come out of this on top. You either need to get really wacky and increasingly unrealistic to even make this idea work at all, or else it just doesn’t.

If your insinuation is that the existence of subsidization is the be-all-end-all of whether a form of transportation is viable or nonviable, then we need only turn our gaze to every other form of transportation available to us which is subsidized to hell and back as well to see how nonsensical your comment is. The only form of overland transportation that doesn’t require substantial state and federal government subsidies is freight rail.

So here we are again, with no way to move people around because it’s too “inefficient” for you. Have fun on your walk to your ambulance train.

Yeah your nonsensical comment would be validated by a nonsensical reply, wouldn’t it

Did they state this, or is it a guess? Most corporate desktop users aren’t even the ones making the corporate purchases

Yes they stated this.

If desktop users are valued more, it’s because advertisers pay more for them.

Because the advertisers thing they’re corporate users at work

If a store is willing to pay more to advertise to a desktop user, but also tries to prevent them from using the site

Corporate advertisers are more willing to pay to advertise to corporate buyers. Non-corporate, non-business personal users are not corporate buyers in this context so they benefit more from funneling them into an app for purposes unrelated to advertising to them.

Ok then the next time you break your leg make sure you limp a few miles to the nearest ambulance-train lmao

The desktop is worth more because of the assumption that you’re a corporate buyer at work.

The choice to force you into an app has nothing to do with this at all

What am I missing here?

This is an agent doing IaC for the company. Nowhere is it specified that the agent is only used in staging, only that the fuckup happened while working in the staging environment.

What is a “routine task in [a] staging environment”

Not sure what the routine task was specifically, but it doesn’t really matter. The task involved modifying the company’s infrastructure via IaC.

why does it need admin permissions?

It’s doing IaC, how exactly is it supposed to manage the cloud infrastructure itself without permissions to manage the infrastructure?

Why does the agent have permissions for the prod environment if it’s supposed to work in the staging one?

Who said the agent only works in the staging one? I doubt they’d use a fully qualified infrastructure engineer to manage prod and then give staging to an AI. Either that engineer is managing the company’s infra or he’s not.

What the article describes is an agent that manages their IaC, and when it was set to do a job in the staging environment, it deleted something in prod because it thought that would help it do what it was doing in staging. The CEO says the resource deleted was somehow in both environments at the same time. Not sure I believe that but that’s what he said. If that’s true, I would imagine that’s how the AI designed it in the first place.

No, I was simply mistaken about the job it was given. Like I said, all I had to work with was the tomshardware article, which doesn’t go into much detail.

The article goes into full detail. All of this information was in the article.

GitHub didn’t work at all most of the day yesterday

Granting someone or something that isn’t the senior admin permission to delete a volume is irresponsible.

Correct. Like I said this was the job of a senior admin.

They gave the AI the job of managing IaC for their environment. Then were shocked when the AI managed the environment incorrectly. This is absolutely not something you let a junior engineer anywhere near.

You seem to be suggesting that the AI should be able to do the job they gave it without being given the permission required for it to do. The thing about doing things in IT, is you need to have permissions to do the things you’re asked to do. So you have to make sure the person you give permissions to is reliable and knows what they’re doing. The AI did not.

That’s why I consider this partially a human failing: If you’re gonna use a tool, make sure that it operates within safe limits.

Yes and in this case using it for this job at all was clearly not within safe limits. You keep hammering on “It’s not the AI’s fault it was given a job with too big of a blast zone for it to safely do” after I’ve said “This type of job has too big a blast zone for an AI to safely do” and somehow you’ve convinced yourself that these are two different things.

Yes that’s right the protocols that we humans used to have for giving only trusted, reliable people this level of access over infrastructure predate LLMs and were a great way to stop this from happening.

However the AI is here now, and when you give an autonomous agent with known hallucination problems access to act on your behalf with your IaC on your infra provider, this kind of thing is an inevitability.

Giving the equivalent of a junior dev with a learning disability the keys to the whole place is just dumb.

Correct. You too have now identified the AI problem. This was the job of a human senior infrastructure engineer that they delegated to an AI agent. They’ve found out why it’s not an AI’s job.

Seems to be, yes. The AI had the access it needed to do the job it was given, and that access allowed it to cause the problem.

The alternative that would have prevented this issue was to not use AI for this.

this is an “Don’t allow anyone access your backups without following protocol.” problem.

Congratulations you just identified the AI problem.