Wouldn't the obvious solution to this problem to stop using agents that don't respect your usage limits instead of trying to build sketchy containers around misbehaving software?
Yeah I don’t understand this problem, who uses so many agents at the same time in the first place?
And if this is really a problem, why not funnel your AI agents through a proxy server which they all support instead of this hacky approach? It would be super easy to build a proxy server that keeps track of costs per day/session and just returns errors once you hit a limit.
The downside to doing this is that you'll sound like an LLM. LLM-generated text is very obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension and once detected will cause some people to summarily dismiss the sender as a bot.
This is more than acceptable if it allows you to confidently send of an email in less than a minute that would otherwise take you 30 minutes of agony to write and still not be confident about.
Also, these aren't cold calls. The recipients aren't critical about how "botty" the email sounds.
I tried "show me Portugal" and it showed me Madeira, which is an island that is indeed part of Portugal, but I was expecting it to go for the mainland.
Repeating the prompt alternates between Madeira and Açores which is again, technically correct, but in this case not the best kind of correct.
The thing I don't understand is the concept "majority" in the crypto space. There is no way to prove that one person doesn't control the majority of the voting power.
If I own a large portion of the supply split across several hundred wallets and I vote one way, smaller owners may be influenced by the appearance of hundreds of votes being cast one way vs the other. We see this in the real world, where some people are willing to just vote for what they think is the majority sentiment when they don't have strong opinions on a matter.
I've heard arguments along the lines of "those with more invested into the project should have more voting power" but that to me just sounds like an incentive to centralize.
If I'm a small player, I either go with the majority or see my investment become worthless, or in a fantasy world where crypto is used for anything other than wild speculation, I see my utility greatly diminished as I'm no longer able to interact with the "majority". Sure, I might still be able to interact with those left behind, but the pressure to move over to the majority fork is going to pull more and more people towards that.
I see federation of content as a much more approachable means to re-decentralization of the internet.
We still rely on centralized DNS. As we still rely on ISPs to make sure our packets can leave our local networks, and on international treaties to make sure we can communicate with networks in other countries, but unless you want everyone to start developing and maintaining a decentralized physical computer network for free, we'll always need to trust a number of institutions to do this thing where we can communicate with someone on the other side of the world within a few milliseconds.
Voting has nothing to with the consensus mechanisms to determine who is allowed to choose what block is appended to the chain. Why are you bringing up "voting" into the discussion here?
The whole argument falls apart for me when it's acceptable to 404 when an api version isn't found, while it's not acceptable to 404 when an employee isn't found.
Why would we handle not finding an employee differently from not finding an API version?
If we're saying employees/100 should return 200 because it "could" exist, but doesn't at the moment, then why would we ever return anything other than 200? Any route "could" come to exist at a future point.
I am ambivalent about 200 for employee not found, but that is clearly a different category of error compared to an api version not existing. for employee not found, the error is purely in data: there is no responsive data, but the request itself was made to an existing endpoint/url/route correctly. no api version existing is an improperly made request: whether or not there is data cannot be determined as the request itself was problematic, so we never even got there.
Instead of regulating whatever social media platform happens to be trendy at the time, your anecdote suggests we should regulate companies so that they offer direct support through conventional means, rather than exclusively through third parties.
Yes, but that would be rather hard to do. You would end up in a semantic discussion of the term "conventional means"? Is that support through telegraph, mail, phone, e-mail or social media? And what determines a third party? The telephone company or mail provider can also be a third party.
In my opinion when we have a oligopoly of social media providers (Twitter, Facebook, etc.), they should be regulated by local laws and government. Same for providers such as Microsoft, Google and Apple. It must be unacceptable that you have to provide your private details for usage and can get banned from a service without any prior communication. And without the ability to appeal or arbitration.
> You would end up in a semantic discussion of the term "conventional means"?
A definition could be a means which is itself regulated to be available to any customer.
So a phone support line is one because phone service is regulated, available and interoperable. Email counts because it is open, standard and decentralized (an email provider like gmail can block you but you can simply go elsewhere or self-host). A support office staffed by humans is also good because everyone can walk/bike/drive there. (But as a counterexample, a support office inside a military base wouldn't count since most people can't get to it, unless 100% of the customers are in that base.)
A support line controlled by a private entity which arbitrarily blocks people from access, such as FB, clearly doesn't count.
When you're unable to "just eat less", it's important to figure out what to eat. One trick I've learned is to substitute all of your snacking with Lupin beans. Every time I get those stomach growls between meals, I just eat a handful of them. They're basically just fiber and protein.
They're also delicious. They're usually sold in a brine, which you'll want to switch out for fresh water at least once to lower the salt content.
Hah, I have a different experience: my Teamspeak server literally stopped working once they started requiring a license key even for self-hosted instances. I scrapped the server entirely and switched to Mumble.
Ah, so your circle of friends does not include people with messed up audio. Teamspeak happily passes on whatever it got as input. Discord does quite a bit of filtering, able to salvage legibility of some of my friends.
It isn't a matter of server-side vs client-side (I have no clue what Discord does, but it does eat quite a bit of compute client-side), but of what we get out of the box.
I tested this by taking a screenshot of the introduction blurb. This is what it came up with:
Tesseract s is 2 pure Javascript port of the popular Tesseract OCR engine.
This library supports more than 100 languages, automatic text orientation and script detection, a simple interface for reading paragraph, word, and character bounding boxes. Tesseract s can run either in 2 browser znd on & server with NodeJS.
