This is mostly an issue with German cars. A lower-end Skoda comes standard with features that would cost half the car's price if optioned on a Mercedes.

Still, browsing the Skoda website, I see Skoda offering lane assist for 450 to 750 euros (one is a "plus" version for some reason), a "headlight assist" for 990 euros, and CarPlay/Android Auto support for 450 euros. 250 euros for heated seats, 350 for adding a phone charging port, 800 euros for satnav, 150 euros for a plastic tray between the seats. That is, of course, after selecting one of six "editions" of the same model that all come with different extras for a markup of several thousand.

The equivalent BYD comes with all of that included for free in the cheapest SKU. The biggest differentiator is that the heated seats are only available in BYD's most luxury version of the car, but the most luxury option is still 22% cheaper than the Skoda with equivalent options. BYD does charge more for a lick of paint, to be fair, so if you're looking for a specific colour you may pay a little more.

Perhaps BMW and Mercedes are worse at this, but the 150 euro plastic tray with cup holder says everything that needs to be said.

I just can't take anyone who uses that term seriously. Just because a billionaire CEO told you it's not gambling doesn't mean it's true.

It's funny because he tried to excuse it in another comment by saying he's using speech-to-text. I really don't understand what this lie was supposed to accomplish since he seems to be the only person using a STT system incapable of proper capitalisation.

So you don't actually have anything to support your argument other than "trust me bro". Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

A useful skill in both software engineering and life is figuring out, based on prior reputation and performance, who you should trust.

It is a useful skill. But regardless of the theme at hand there is also

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

People change all the time, and things need to be reevaluated from time to time.

So another skill is to disengage with our heroes when the values start misalign.

That sound more like software pseudo-engineering to me.

A bit like we should trust RFK on how "vaccines don't work" thanks to his wide experience?

The idea here is not to say that antirez has no knowledge about coding or software engineering, the idea was that if he says "hey we have the facts", and then when people ask "okay, show us the fact" he says: "just download claude code and play with it one hour and you have the facts" we don't trust that, that's not science

That's a great example in support of my argument here, because RFK Jr clearly has no relevant experience at all - so "figuring out, based on prior reputation and performance, who you should trust" should lead you to not listen to a word he says.

Well guess what, a lot of people will "trust him" because he is a "figure of power" (he's a minister of the current administration). So that's exactly why "authority arguments" are bad... and we should rely on science and studies

It entirely depends on the language you were using. The quality of both questions and answers between e.g. Go and JavaScript is incredible. Even as a relative beginner in JS I could not believe the amount of garbage that I came across, something that rarely happened for Go.

Half the vendor software I come across asks you to mount devices from the host, add capabilities or run the container in privileged mode because their outsourced lowest bidder developers barely even know what a container is. I doubt even the smallest minority of their customers protest against this because apparently the place I work at is always the first one to have a problem with it.

If you're at a point where you are exposing services to the internet but you don't know what you're doing you need to stop. Choosing what interface to listen on is one of the first configuration options in pretty much everything, if you're putting in 0.0.0.0 because that's what you read on some random blogspam "tutorial" then you are nowhere near qualified to have a machine exposed to the internet.

Don't do anything until you are an expert is excellent gatekeeping, fortunately this is hacker news so we can ignore the gatekeepers!

I suggest people fuck around and find out, just limit your exposure. Spin up a VPS with nothing important, have fun, and delete it.

At some point we are all unqualified to use the internet and we used it anyway.

No one is going to die because your toy project got hacked and you are out $5 in credits, you probably learned a ton in the process.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Why didn't you just buy one with no camera at all?

This post doesn't read anything like ChatGPT. Correct grammar does not indicate ChatGPT. Em-dashes don't indicate ChatGPT. Assessing whether something was generated using an LLM requires multiple signals, you can't simply decry a piece of text as AI-generated because you noticed an uncommon character.

Unfortunately I think posts like this only seem to detract from valid criticisms. There is an actual ongoing epidemic of AI-generated content on the internet, and it is perfectly valid for people to be upset about this. I don't use the internet to be fed an endless stream of zero-effort slop that will make me feel good. I want real content produced by real people; yet posts like OP only serve to muddy the waters when it comes to these critiques. They latch onto opinions of random internet bottom-feeders (a dash now indicates ChatGPT? Seriously?), and try to minimise the broader skepticism against AI content.

I wonder whether people like the Author will regret their stance once sufficient amount of people are indoctrinated and their content becomes irrelevant. Why would they read anything you have to say if the magic writing machine can keep shitting out content tailored for them 24/7?