Readit NewsThis is riddled with fearmongering. You don't need to be a cybersecurity expert to take interest in your own child. It doesn't take a PhD to enable parental controls or tell your child "no" if they want something that is inappropriate for them.
You might as well have said that you need to be a police officer to make sure your child isn't hit by a drunk driver, kidnapped by creeps or attacked by someone on the street. Children are under the care of parents or guardians for a reason. It's not to fist fight criminals or design their own security system.
Your analogy about drunk drivers actually makes my point: we don't just tell parents "be vigilant". We have DUI laws, road design standards, and enforcement--systemic solutions, not just individual responsibility.
With tech, we've largely abdicated that, placing the entire burden on parents to defend against industrial-scale manipulation.
Expecting individual parents to successfully counter industrial-scale behavioral engineering is a systems failure, not a parenting failure.
What does healthy parenting look like then?
When did "healthy parenting" become a full-time cybersecurity job with no training, adversaries backed by infinite capital, teams of PhDs optimizing for addiction, and sexual predators from around the globe dialoguing with your child through any glass surface your child can get their hands on?
Cherry picking the foreign company with the deepest pockets for “crimes” every game developer commits these days?
Surely, HN of all places recognizes that the EU fines Meta/MS any time they have a shortfall in their budget.
Should Apple/Google be liable as platform?
I'm trying to imagine how you envision regulation without going after the biggest individual apps that enable child financial fraud & sexual grooming.
>The authority is also looking into the games’ parental control features, as the default settings lets minors make in-game purchases, play for long periods without restraints, and allow them to chat with others in-game.
is this satire?
Not sure if you have children, but this is exactly what a healthy government regulatory framework looks like.
For my 11th or 12th birthday, I got a pet porcupine and I was ecstatic. It was my first pet, and I spent hours researching what they eat, what habitats they like, etc. I carefully curated my room to accommodate him (him being 'Sonic'), even keeping it clean for the first time in forever so I wouldn't lose him amidst the mess of soiled undergarments and such. He loved it, and I loved him. Of course, it made no difference when my uncle sat on him on Christmas morning. We rushed him to the vet, but they told us his scans showed fractures on several vertebrae or something like that. We took him home, and waited for him to die, but the waiting was too painful. I'll spare the details, but what transpired next involved my dad, his shovel, and a lot of tears.
About an hour later, we got a call from the vet - they'd misread the scan, and Sonic was gonna be fine. I think I was traumatized at the time, but the whole thing later became an inside joke (?) for my family - "Don't kill your porcupine before the vet calls" (a la "Don't count your chickens before they hatch").
I guess my point, as it pertains to Cursor, its AI offerings, and other corporations in the space is that we shouldn't jump the gun before a reasonable framework exists to evaluate such open-ended technologies. Of course Cursor reported this as a success, the incentive structure demands they do so. So remember - don't kill your porcupine before the vet calls.
No one's killing a porcupine here.
I think HN being mostly quite technical under estimate the latent demand for ad-hoc business automation by people who know what they want to happen but aren't comfortable writing code.
You could look at it as a generic replacement for many types of AI SaaS harness. Previously if you wanted to reduce the workload of an office worker say reading work orders (that arrive in 50 different formats via email, sometimes as pdfs or behind portal links) and entering them into job control, you would need to write a custom agent harness or use a SaaS. Now you can sort of "mold" this thing like clay and get it to do the job. Instead of writing an API integration for the job control system you can just give it the openapi spec. Instead of writing your business logic in code, you can describe it in English. If you are technical, you can work with it to turn parts of the workflow into code to reduce token spend or make them more deterministic.
Naturally, it has all the disadvantages of home built automation (typically limited reproducibility, less secure, not generalised).
There's a lot of jank and risk but, hiring people can be pretty hit and miss in that regard also so for small businesses it's not as "out of distribution" as you might think.
Corporate is a different story.