Using a battery powered electronic device as a “pass” detected by another handheld electronic device, both of which are contacting cell towers, exchanging data with data centres 100s of kms away, filling out detailed profiles of user behavior … rather than a paper ticket?

You could think about it this way:

All AI prices will rise soon - probably shortly after the IPOs. The new prices will be eyewatering compared with today’s. This bulling change is lengthening the time until Anthropic have to raise the subscription prices, so those of us who’re not doing 24hr claw stuff can continue to use the tools the way we’ve gotten used to.

I'm a beginner with agentic coding. I vibe code something most days, from a few lines up to refactors over a few files. I don't knowingly use skills, rarely _choose_ to call out to tools, haven't written any skills and only one or two ad hoc scripts, and have barely touched MCPs (because the few I've used seem flaky and erratic). I answered as such and got... intermediate.

Yes, very likely. Even in the 90s 120min tapes were more fragile and much more likely to warp or get caught than the shorter lengths.

I read the implication too, as well as the fatigue.

They offered nothing to counteract the idea that we should just shut up and accept it. Then they closed with "And I actually like the concept of reward cards (although I don't use them) because it is pretty much the only way how you can make money off your data." - which sounds like they have given up opposition, and are now considering ways to profit from the situation rather than fight it.

As the attack actor now has the data, they're liable for ongoing GDPR failures, on top of the theft. Then anyone they sell the data to becomes liable (on top of handling stolen goods). Could be a money-earner for the EU if they pursue it properly.

Any functioning national health service. Any national education system. Transport networks. Nations with unprivatised water systems.

> Any selector with the " " operator on A risk expanding to the inner A even if it was intended only for the outer.

Then <a type=b> is potentially a <c>. Consider a small refactor?

SoC is how all maintainable software is built. A function for A, a class for B, DDD-spec'd modules and features, databases on separate machines, API definitions, queuing systems, event systems, load balancing, web servers.

You don't even need to think of the web to see how content and presentation are different. Try editing a text file with hard line breaks in and you'll quickly understand how presentation and content are orthogonal.

Please don’t be so condescending. We all know what separation of concerns is.

The comment said “web development”, and it’s inarguably that in the history of web development there have been at least a couple of major misapplications of separation of concerns, which have had practically everlasting negative consequences.

Read what you’re replying to before you reply to it.

> At what point does the project outgrow the AI in your experience? I have a 70k LOC backend/frontend/database/docker app that Claude still mostly one shots most features/tasks I throw at it.

How do you do this?

Admittedly, I'm using Copilot, not CC.

I can't get Copilot to finish a refactor properly, let alone a feature. It'll miss an import rename, leave in duplicated code, update half the use cases but not all.. etc. And that's with all the relevant files in context, and letting it search the codebase so it can get more context.

It can talk about DRY, or good factoring, or SOLID, but it only applies them when it feels like it, despite what's in AGENTS.md. I have much better results when I break the task down into small chunks myself and NOT tell it the whole story.