The product itself is augmented human: specific concrete human design choices and changes, using the machine to toil. It's not "I will black magic this for you, blow you away on a one shot, and utterly fail to be useful in real life". It's more "you do the you part, machine types up the diffs."
Philosophically, I both believe in this approach, and, find it goes much further in the real world, as if mastery matters over median-ocrity.
The submission itself here is clearly not the product submission template explosion on reddit and here in the OpenClaw boom. The product concept and use feel human designed as well, although the site selling it is clearly template or design gen.
Ergonomics studies back in the day demonstrated amber beats green. Our shop spent extra for amber CRTs over green.
On MacOS Terminal, edit the Homebrew profile and set Text and Bold Text to Apple color Orange, consider setting Selection to Apple color Green and Cursor to Block, Blink, and Apple color Yellow.
All companies know this and it is trivial to strrip the +label from the address automatically.
If you are using +labels on your addresses and think you are being clever enough to spot companies that sell your data, I can tell you I have personally seen companies use code to strip these labels before selling profiled data.
Insecure is a curious word as it entangles with what is or isn't known, more than informs about design.
A different way to put it is GCP architecture has made different tradeoffs. For example favoring operability over confidentiality*, or scalability over integrity.
This makes sense from its mono-tenant engineering origins. Those were the right calls. Google exported SRE not SecEng.
Frankly, for most cloud customers, it's what they need.
---
* Take this break glass process. It arguably shouldn't be possible. If clients need their CSP to be "NSL proof", unable to leak corporate info responding to a national security letter (or any less obligatory rationale) without the corporation knowing, GCP is not their cloud. CSPs mostly consider it more difficult than it's worth to design a cloud offering that can be proven unable to provide a client's data. On the contrary, customers yell if CSP can't restore lost data, like Apple users yell if Apple can't restore iCloud. iCloud Advanced Security is what happens when you build clients the choice -- witness the warnings.
i guess the difference is i chose my hyperscalers à la carte instead of getting the all-in-one bundle. at least when cloudflare breaks something i can still ssh into my linode and debug it directly
The product itself is augmented human: specific concrete human design choices and changes, using the machine to toil. It's not "I will black magic this for you, blow you away on a one shot, and utterly fail to be useful in real life". It's more "you do the you part, machine types up the diffs."
Philosophically, I both believe in this approach, and, find it goes much further in the real world, as if mastery matters over median-ocrity.
The submission itself here is clearly not the product submission template explosion on reddit and here in the OpenClaw boom. The product concept and use feel human designed as well, although the site selling it is clearly template or design gen.
reply