> Most over-70s are significantly worse than the average driver and some are so dangerous they shouldn't be on the road at all.

> You're taking about statistical averages but I'm talking about a significant minority of over-70s who are wildly dangerous.

You sure about that?

Over 70s do have higher rates of accidents per 100m over average, although it is small until you get to 80+.

Businesses do not exist to create jobs; jobs are a byproduct.

Even that is underselling it; jobs are a necessary evil that should be minimised. If we can have more stuff with fewer people needing to spend their lives providing it, why would we NOT want that?

Because we've built a system where if you don't have a job, you die.

This is already hyperbolic; in most countries where software engineers or similar knowledge workers are widely employed there are welfare programmes.

To add to that, if there is such mass unemployment in this scenario it will be because fewer people are needed to produce and therefore everything will become cheaper... This is the best kind of unemployment.

So at best: none of us have to work again and will get everything we need for free. At worst, certain professions will need a career switch which I appreciate is not ideal for those people but is a significantly weaker argument for why we should hold back new technology.

If you were to rank all of the C compilers in the world and then rank all of the welfare systems in the world, this vibe-coded mess would be at approximately the same rank as the American welfare system. Especially if you extrapolate this narcissistic, hateful kleptocracy out a few more years.

Did we build it or did nature?

We did.

So you created a project, implicitly to help individuals keep their computers and credentials secure, but you can’t be bothered to proofread a read me?

I get using AI, I do all day everyday day it feels like, but this comes off as not having respect for others time.

Except nobody considers 200k employees a small company.

They have a robust KYC that appears to serve, at least in large part, as a way to stay off the shit list of companies with the resources to pursue recourse.

Source: went through that process, ended up going a different route. The rep was refreshingly transparent about where they get the data, why the have the kyc process (aside from regulatory compliance).

Ended up going with a different provider who has been cheaper and very reliable, so no complaints.

Yeah, they make you do a Skype interview (or probably Zoom interview nowadays). You could call this KYC or collateral, depending on your view of the company. It does limit the nefariousness of their clientele but I doubt they do much, or any, monitoring of actual traffic after onboarding (not for compliance reasons, anyway).

I’ve certainly never been asked to do KYC with Luminati after using them for hundreds of terabytes over the years.

It’s not like I’m using some bigco email address or given them any other reason to skip KYC either.

They probably would if they would see your username here!

I think they should have requested KYC when I was complaining about being unable to log into gmail, but I’m not going to complain as long as the service works.

I don’t use Luminati for anything illegal though, so it’s possible they just have some super amazing abuse detection algorithms that know this.

They do KYC when you want to unblock certain domains.

Also not my experience, even though I’ve had to email them for whitelisting.

It might just be because my account is very old?

Maybe, or more likely you’re not trying to pull in content that is considered high risk to them, such as YouTube transcripts.

Langfuse has been my favorite LLM observability solution so far. Hopefully this acquisition makes it better, not worse.

I love langfuse, it is my goto.

By forcing the poorest to disclose their personal health issues?

Those are… actually some very good questions.

This is essentially what the claude code and codex teams have been preaching, right?