The sociopathic backhand. Someone breaks it, blames you, drags your name through the mud exacerbating the issue, goes to "fix it" yet makes it worse because of their incompetence. They continue to cuss you out for it all while licking the arse of the executive. "No, we better not let doublerabbit touch that", "I don't think they're a team player". All while it was my infrastructure.
Flash was on a bunch of mobile platforms, just not iOS. When it became clear that Apple were going to take a sizeable chunk of the market and were never going to support it, Adobe decided to cut their losses: https://web.archive.org/web/20111116013328/http://blogs.adob...
I remember trying to browse a Flash build promo website for Transformers 2 on my PSP (what a 2009 sentence) and it wouldn't load. I was quite disappointed.
Apart from you have no idea what's going on in the VM. It's not as it has a virtual terminal. I'll play the skeptic archetype: What's not to say they're transmitting all prompts back HQ?
Don't be naive and don't think they don't already do this.
Why not ask itself and see what it says about it. "Claude, why are you running in a virtual machine and what are you doing?".
Claude transmits all prompts back to HQ as a part of its basic functionality.
If you are using an AI system to read your codebase from your local folder and make changes, whether or not you have a VM running or not is inconsequential. The Claude extension and/or CLI doesn’t need a VM to send code back to the mothership, you’re already running an executable program and granting it directory access.
Whether you trust a company as a vendor is typically based on their privacy policy, EULA, and your contract with them (if applicable). Those are the bits that have legal enforceability.
I wouldn't say so. They're not offering their cloud at the same scale other competitors. Not sure when the last was I saw advertising for unlike AWS, Azure.
Felt more like their cloud services were more of a side product for when "the cloud" was the trendy buzzword and a way to justify their infrastructure costs. That and keeping a leg in the egg & spoon race.
Absolutely. Yahoo started out as directories, long before it added a search engine. They were a much better way to discover new corners of the internet (sorta like looking at a list of subreddits today). Web rings was another one. Internet was new, so it was always fun to surprise yourself with something different. Search engines were crap and would normally be used to look for something specific rather than discovery, which I guess hasn't changed.
Yahoo was originally "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle", and earlier "Jerry and David's Guide to the World Wide Web". A key position at the company was a librarian who help establish and slot links into that hierarchy, and some early press addressed this and the obvious future role of library science in online content management. Don't believe all forward-looking speculation you read. (Or backward-looking reminiscences, for that matter.)
These were both useful and limited. Useful because early Web content-based search sucked. Altavista was the best of the bunch to my recollection, and only launched in late 1995. Google came along in (late?) 1997 and blew everyone away, I was using it by 1999. There were "sponsored content" directories, but those tended not to gain much traction as they were so obviously inferior in quality. The main directories generally avoided this taint.
The Web was far smaller, far less commercial, much less dynamic (editable / user-contributable sites were extremely rare, blogs barely existed), and pretty eclectic. Organising by category pretty much worked, as content evolved slowly, the total space was relatively small, and highlighting the Really Good Stuff was both useful and tractable. Today that's fairly intractable, though directory-like organisation might be seen in, say Wikipedia or some similar projects.
"Where Did Earth Get Its Deserts? Maybe It's Ai, Datacentres and Climate Change"
reply