Same reason for including private equity. They've been selling to each other to pump the valuations for long enough that it's time to find some retail bagholders to keep this bullbe from popping.

some end in .com but oh god yes I HATE the term app.

I used the hell out of MS Works. It did what I needed quickly and without the HUGE bloat of M$Office and Word. Though I came from a GML background so it was easy...

LMAO...I wish I had mod points...you deserve it.

No dealerships doesn't mean there won't be model showrooms, like what already exist today for several small brands where they are not allowed to sell direct. This is a problem that was solved over a decade ago.

So you bought a used car without the ability to inspect it yourself and also didn't get a pre purchase inspection and.........you're saying that was a really stupid, careless thing to do? Yeah, I agree.

The problem you get though is what I call the "California Cancer Warning Problem"
Basically, people can only pay attention to so many warnings. The more often people get false or trivial warnings, warnings where they have to continue to get things done as standard, the more likely they are to just plain ignore the warnings.

While hackers might be able to figure out a way to do something malicious without triggering the warning, the warnings back then were worse than useless, because they not only triggered for just about every document, users by default could not assess the document for safety without enabling the scripting. IE I couldn't by default open the document and look at the scripts to assess them (and some of them were only like a dozen lines) without enabling them.

Saying the warnings were necessary also ignores that there have been exploits that didn't even require opening a document to cause infection. Preview was enough.

Basically, if the hackers figured out something clever, just add that to the check. It would still be a better situation than what we had back then.

funny how this /. poster doewsn't know how to use an adblocker, wonder how many yous had whe you posted that? Mine has 0.

Do you know how to do math? Because that's how. It's not a difficult problem space to quantify. You can easily know how much water one vs the other uses, you can easily know how much detergent you need to use in one vs the other and you also know the costs on those things. You also know how many loads of laundry you do and how frequently. Wear an tear on clothes would take more, but is likely unnecessary to show a net benefit.

Could you really not image this solution as soon as you read the problem?

"Everyone" did not, but people who tend towrads black and white thinking (like someone who would use "everyone" in this context) have.

Nope. It mean what it sounds like: low quality content. It's a perfectly good word. Sounds like you're a true believer who's feeling are hurt. Which means lots of the things you think AI is good at are also slop to everyone else paying attention.

I’d argue that slavery wasn’t “legal because nobody banned it.” It was legal because there were explicit laws that created, defined, and enforced the institution.

There were statutes specifying who could be held as slaves, rules that the child of an enslaved woman was automatically a slave, procedures for manumission, regulations on how slaves could be bought, sold, punished, or inherited, and laws requiring that escaped slaves be returned. That’s not a legal vacuum, that’s a full legal framework.

It’s similar to how segregation laws later forced discrimination on people who might not have engaged in it otherwise. The state wasn’t passively allowing something; it was actively mandating and structuring it.

Slavery existed because the law built and maintained it, not because the law failed to forbid it.

I remember those days where it would warn if there was any scripting at all, rather than look for dangerous commands first.
Just as a thought, not bothering if the script cannot reach outside of the document itself. Functions that access other files or documents, email functionality, and such triggering the warning instead would have been more effective.

LLMs have never been rules-based "agents," and they never will be. They cannot internalize arbitrary guidelines and abide by them unerringly, nor can they make qualitative decisions about which rule(s) to follow in the face of conflict. The nature of attention windows means that models are actively ignoring context, including "rules", which is why they can't follow them, and conflict resolution requires intelligence, which they do not possess, and which even intelligent beings frequently fail to do effectively. Social "error correction" tools for rule-breaking include learning from mistakes, which agents cannot do, and individualized ostracization/segregation (firing, jail, etc.), which is also not something we can do with LLMs.

So the only way to achieve rule-following behavior is to deterministically enforce limits on what LLMs can do, akin to a firewall. This is not exactly straightforward either, especially if you don't have fine-grained enough controls in the first place. For example, you could deterministically remove the capability of an agent to delete emails, but you couldn't easily scope that restriction to only "work emails," for example. They would need to be categorized appropriately, external to the agent, and the agent's control surface would need to thoroughly limit the ability to delete any email tagged as "work", or to change or remove the "work" tag, and ensure that the "work" tag deny rule takes priority over any other "allow" rules, AND prevent the agent from changing the rules by any means.

Essentially, this is an entirely new threat model, where neither agentic privilege nor agentic trust cleanly map to user privilege or user trust. At the same time, the more time spent fine-tuning rules and controls, the less useful agentic automation becomes. At some point you're doing at least as much work as the agent, if not more, and the whole point of "individualized" agentic behavior inherently means that any given set of fine-tuned rules are not broadly applicable. On top of that, the end result of agentic behavior might even be worse than the outcome of human performance to boot, which means more work for worse results.