> The 66-year-old brick will have the exact same interference fit, the same clutch power, the same 4.8mm stud diameter.
Pretty sure this is false. Old bricks had way higher clutch power, so high that it was deemed too difficult to separate. Sometime in the 90's the grip strength was reduced.
This false claim is underpins the entire article :(
I concur. I had "inherited" the sets of my 10 years older brother, and they where a pain to play with. It was sometimes impossible to separate the pieces, especially if it were plates with no leverage and nothing to grip.
People got banned for calling `gemini -p` (non-interactive mode) from wrappers like pi or opencode, too.
I understand how grabbing an oauth token via reverse engineering could be a ToS violation. But there's no other purpose for the `-p` flag other than to use it with a wrapper. Unless people enjoy having interactive conversations via non-interactive mode for some reason.
Even their documentation clearly states this flag exists for "building custom AI tools" [1]. How is OpenCode, OpenClaw etc not a "custom AI tool", where exactly is the line drawn?
Tokens like those generated by the gemini CLI, accounted to the user and metered so you're charged every million or so tokens.
Tokens like those internal to the Antigravity app, accounted to the product (which is why this was noticed -- the resources allotted to the app were being exhausted) and not metered per token (which is why everyone was trying to use them for everything).
As the other commenter said, the first person to do this definitely knew what they were doing. All the script kiddies who piled on after, probably not, but that's also part of why "script kiddy" is a derogatory term. Not only do they usually not understand the scripts they run, they also typically do not understand the risks associated with them.
Regardless, their point is that the argument seems faulty. Indeed, their docs going unreviewed seems moot to whether the code goes unreviewed, given there are much stronger reasons to review code than there are to review documentation; as they wrote, bad documentation doesn't automatically break your application when it's published (there's at least a few more steps involved). Your statement's accuracy is not exclusive to the illogic of an argument which agrees with the statement.
> I don't know if you are just playing devil's advocate
Indeed, that is playing Devil's Advocate but one should remember that such Advocacy is performed to make sure that arguments against the Devil are as strong as they can be. It's not straightforward to see how simply repeating an assertion helps to argue for the veracity of it.
>> I realize BSOD is no longer nearly as common as it once was
Anecdotally, installing wrong drivers (in my case it was drivers for COM-port STM32 interaction) could make it as common as twice a day on Win11.
While my windows server 2008 still doing just great, no BSOD through lifetime.
I agree that for a common user BSOD is now less likely to happen, but wonder whether it's less to do with windows core, and more with windows defender default aggressive settings
However I run like 3x concurrent sessions that do multiple compacts throughout, for like 8hrs/day, and I go through a 20x subscription in about 1/2 week. So I'm extremely skeptical of these negative claims.
Edit: However I stay on top of my prompting efficiency, maybe doing some incredibly wasteful task is... wasteful?
Two PA27JCV and one LG ultrasharp (it was cheap because it was broken and I repaired it) and the 4k monitor is a samsung which I cant recommend. (Open box was cheap though)
Pretty sure this is false. Old bricks had way higher clutch power, so high that it was deemed too difficult to separate. Sometime in the 90's the grip strength was reduced.
This false claim is underpins the entire article :(
reply