Even worse, Windows now has menus with only icons and no text.

Is there really no way to make anti-cheat on Linux that can't be bypassed? I don't know much about this, but it seems very difficult to make an anti-cheat for a platform where you can make changes in the kernel.

I think the reason AI is being pushed everywhere right now is simply that companies want to experiment with it.

They want to explore what is possible and what sticks with users.

The best way to do this is to just push it in their apps as many places as possible since 1. you get a nice list of real world problems to try and solve. 2. You have more pressure on devs to actually make something that works because it is going into production. 3. You get feedback from millions of users.

Also, by working heavily with their AI, they will discover areas that can be improved and thus make the AI itself better.

They don't care that it is annoying, unhelpful or uneconomical because the purpose is experimentation.

I think the reason AI is being pushed everywhere right now is simply that companies want to experiment with it.

They want to explore what is possible and what sticks with users.

The best way to do this is to just push it in their apps as many places as possible since 1. you get a nice list of real world problems to try and solve. 2. You have more pressure on devs to actually make something that works because it is going into production. 3. You get feedback from millions of users.

Also, by working heavily with their AI, they will discover areas that can be improved and thus make the AI itself better.

They don't care that it is annoying, unhelpful or uneconomical because the purpose is experimentation.

We do this too sometimes and I love it. When I work on my own projects I always stop and refactor/fix problems before adding any new features. I wish companies would see the value in doing this

Also love the humble brag. "I've just closed my 12th bug" and later "12 was maximum number of bugs closed by one person"

This only works if everyone on the team is VERY good at what they do. I have worked in plenty of teams where it was absolutly necessary to collaborate, lest people just go ahead and implement some horrible solutions.

I've seen the opposite problem many times. Someone has confidently implemented something terrible, and I'm just thinking, why didn't you ask anyone about this!

Posthogs solution seems to be to "only hire very good people". Which is kind of funny to me. That might be possible in a hip company working with exiting new tech. But for many companies such as "boring" companies with old outdated stacks or start ups with no money, that just does not seem to be possible, at least in my experience.

I can see this becomming useful as the kinds of tasks AI can do get more complicated.

Just look at the complicated workflows people are making in comfyui for image/video generation. Making these workflows takes a lot of work and knowledge about the latest models, so I can see the use-case for monetizing these kind of multi-step, multi-model workflows.

Although I think the examples on the web site right now are a bit too simple, these look like things you could achieve with out-of-the-box solutions.

As a developer, I don't like this update either. But I think the comments here are a bit biased from the advanced user point of view. No one here is likely to fall for scams, but why should Google build their system to fit the needs of the 5% advanced users rather than the 95% casuals?

As the article illustrates, users will ignore all warnings and get themselves scammed, and so the last resort is to not even give them the option.