I've yet to receive an accurate response from Gemini about GCP services, beyond completely trivial topics. The most recent, I think, was Gemini advising me that I could attach an existing pd SSD PVC to a n4 or c4 VM. For whatever unknowable reason, Google doesn't allow this and doesn't offer a migration path, and Gemini doesn't "know" anything about it either. It's wild.
If we all spent more time listening the guy who called someone a pedophile because he suggested the guy's plan to save people was ridiculous, would that improve discourse? I am skeptical.
Not the person you're replying to but yes, sometimes I do tell the agent to remove the cruft. Then I back up a few messages in the context and reword my request. Instead of just saying "fix this crash", or whatever, I say "this is crashing because the string is empty, however it shouldn't be empty, figure out why it's empty". And I might have it add some tests to ensure that whatever code is not returning/passing along empty strings.
I caught it using Parameters<typeof otherfn>[2] the other day. It wanted to avoid importing a type, so it did this nonsense. (I might have the syntax slightly wrong here, I'm writing from memory.)
But it's not all bad news. TIL about Parameters<T>.
The point is whether every user actually notices it, it's that enough of them do that attackers are specifically looking for the ability to do small charges. If you remove that capability, they will look elsewhere.
Companies may get multiple options but you and I and Joe average are going to have to submit PII to several vendors chosen by someone else, exactly like the credit bureau system but without the regulations they have to follow.
The fact that the powers-that-be need to understand but choose not to is that what they want is literally impossible, even with mandatory government blood screenings to access computers. Anything short of requiring identification per POST is inadequate. This whole thing is a fools' errand and we must not give any ground.
reply