Amazon has device management but still allows developers to install software via `brew`. Windows is slightly more locked down in that user's don't have admin by default, but there's a very low bar to clear to get it temporarily.
Brew also has workbrew which gives the admin control of the repository. There's also JAMF on macos. None of these systems must give developers free reign to violate software licenses.
Amazon Bedrock Guardrails uses a purpose-built model to look for safety issues in the model inputs/outputs. While you won't get any specific guarantees from AWS, they will point you at datasets that you can use to evaluate the product and then determine if it's fit for purpose according to your risk tolerance.
Yeah I'll often look for something specific and I'll see listings that have nothing to do with what I'm looking for. Like I think I was looking for wide mouth nipples for baby bottles, a specific brand and model, and I was seeing baby toys. Like ok, they surmised I have a baby... But don't show it to me as a result for a query for something completely different.
Having previously owned a Chinese car (Great Wall H5, bought new), I'm on the fence about buying Chinese cars. Initially it was a great car -- lots of features and they used high quality OEM parts (e.g. a Mitsubishi engine). However, I found that it didn't hold up well* and was missing some of the touches that come from engineering not coming from a car culture. As one example, the tensioner for the accessory belt was a single 14mm bolt. Technically it worked, but it was not fun. Meanwhile, even my '85 Ford Escort had a half-inch square opening in the belt bracketry that accepted a half-inch socket driver/breaker bar for setting the tension. I don't think this is uniquely a Chinese problem, as I heard similar complaints from owners of early Nissan/Toyota full-size trucks. Toyota was able to eventually improve, but Nissan had to pack it in on the Titan.
*To roughly quantify, I'd say mid-to-late 80s Ford/GM car, not 70s Ford/GM car. It never stranded me, but it did break a few times in inconvenient fashion.
I don't think Chinese cars ever came into their own until two things happened:
- A move to automate auto factory lines in Chinese auto factories. Up until about a decade ago the emphasis was still on using human labor, and quality took a hit accordingly. Robots are much more precise and consistent, the quality difference between a Chinese-made cars and the same kind of car made in Japan was huge.
- EVs. EV motors are just more reliable in general, and are easier to replace when they wear out or are defective. You don't have so many moving parts any more, and the Chinese became world leaders in battery tech.
If I ever live in China again and need to buy a car, it will definitely be an EV. Heck, I would never buy a BMW ICE (maintenance sucks) but I bought a BMW EV...
Chinese non-EVs never had a good reputation. The take-off really happened only with EVs as China had the edge in batteries which is the thing that matters most on an EV.
The powertrain packaging for vans is much tighter than for trucks. Who amongst us remembers removing the interior to change sparkplugs 6 and 8 in a GMC Vandura?
Even if you're not going to do the knuckle-skinning work yourself, the packaging negatively influences book rates when you take it to a shop
I don't know that I would describe NPR as "great". One specific example that sticks in my mind was a story they did about firearms. The host kept using the word "automatic". Knowing something about firearms, it was apparent to me that it was being used as shorthand for "not a revolver", but the host was implying that it meant "machine gun". Revolvers are so uncommon that there's really not any useful value being passed in attaching the word "automatic" when describing a gun unless you're describing something that is subject to the NFA.
Or, more recently, there was a deep dive into the Chicago parking meter deal. I don't think anyone needs convincing that it was a bad deal, but one thing that they said was that the new owners have "already received back all the money they paid out". Okay, but please expand. This was for an economics show, so is the recovery just a gross dollar comparison (e.g. they've received back more than $1.1B), is it inflation adjusted, does it exceed the time value of the money that was given to the Daley administration? It wouldn't have taken but another 30 seconds to make it clear, but by not saying I'm 99% certain they were focusing on gross dollar comparison and ignoring the value of 2008 dollars vs. 2025 dollars. In turn, that sounds like it's playing towards the audience members that don't understand why the total of payments for their mortgage is so much more than the purchase price of the house.
And, yet, that reporting is better than what 99% of the public have in their brains on a subject.
Want an interesting discussion? Talk about "AI" to your non-technical family members. You'll take the NPR Gell-Mann effect any day over what they've gotten from other sources.
Isn't the whole idea of freedom of the press to act as a check to governmental power? With state-run media you tend to get lots of propaganda and little actual news.
Personally, I support a ban on public (taxpayer) funding of journalism. Keep it independent.
> With state-run media you tend to get lots of propaganda and little actual news
I think the BBC are a good counter to that argument. No, they’re not flawless but over the decades they’ve delivered plenty of journalism that’s held government to account.
The current government of the USA could not create a similar vehicle. Washington State would hand it off to some donor (like previously Inslee appointed a donor to ESD which then lost a billion dollars to scammers when covid hit) and the federal government, uh, goes without saying?
The BBC just like any other news organization is not neutral. It sometimes leans left and it sometimes lean right. The problem is that this "leaning" is never disclosed.
If a newspaper is comfortably right-wing/left-wing and so on, I don't care about their biases because at least you know that if you read it, you are going to get a "version" of a story that fits the overall narrative of the outlet.
When it comes down to publicly funded news outlet though, their neutrality is disputable and on top of that you end up paying through your taxes for "news" that have either been downplayed or exaggerated depending on who is reporting on it.
So as a tax payer, what is there to gain from being manipulated (at best) or lied to (at worst) by an organization who is supposed to be neutral but who isn't?
I wish it wasn't the case but there has been too many stories in the past in the mainstream media that turned out to be either misrepresented or made up and there was rarely any retraction/apologies on the subject.
And just in case you think that only right wingers have problem with the BBC (for example), the accusations of biases come from the left and from the right of the political spectrum so this is a problem for everyone.
I also have personal experience that they're far from infallible, a friend lied to them about our farcical "Potato powered" computer† and for a while their news story about this was actually available as if it was real news not a joke.
But they're clearly trying and "not good enough" doesn't seem like an adequate justification for giving up and saying we'll just go without democracy then. If this is the best we have then this will have to do.
† The worst part is that this is kinda, sorta at the edge of plausible, which is why I thought from the outset that it's not a good joke. We didn't build such a thing, but maybe someone could have or even has.
> the accusations of biases come from the left and from the right
> of the political spectrum so this is a problem for everyone.
It's impossible for any media outlet to be considered truly neutral. Reporting that doesn't align with your own (biased) partisan viewpoint is, to you, biased.
It's often said that when both sides accuse a media outlet of being biased towards the other side, they're probably being pretty objective. It shows they're reporting accurately rather than pandering to one side over the other.
By contrast, nobody is accusing the Daily Mail of left-wing bias, nor The Guardian of being right-wing.
Just government power? Corporate media is no less afflicted by this problem. Small-time journalism is just as capable of being tendentious. Advertising also shapes coverage, as subscriptions and reader purchases never cover operating expenses.
In any case, this is not a problem to be solved. I do think the media should stop concealing or misrepresenting their political leanings. They will always be there. Everyone has a POV. You might as well openly advertise what that POV is. Then it is up to readers and viewers to draw from multiple POVs (which they might not do, but that's just life).
This position is suitable, for the 1990s. Even then, the BBC showed that public journalism != propaganda.
In fact, the evidence is that if you build institutions, you can actually have very effective public options.
However, in the current era, news is simply being outcompeted for revenue. Even the NYT is dependent on games for relevance.
And the attack vectors to mould and muzzle public understanding have changed. Instead of a steady drip of controlled information, it is private production of overwhelming amounts of content.
Most good people are fighting yesterdays war, with yesterdays weapons, tactics and ideas when it comes to speech.
The real reporting now comes from individual creators often with a gopro or cellphone camera and a youtube/tiktok channel.
It's cheap to make, doesn't require state/institutional funding. It's also quite hard to buyout all the creators and thus at least slightly resilient against the usual attack vectors.
CDK's twin problems are that it compiles down to CloudFormation and that AWS did a terrible job at supporting languages other than TypeScript. The latter is theoretically fixable with a native FFI library that is called from each language, but the former is too leaky of an abstraction.
In my experience, the AWS UI is actually pretty good at keyboard usability. The biggest issue with the UI is how long it can take API calls to fill in the data, and that would be the same for both the browser and a TUI.
Union employees have negotiated healthcare into long-term contracts, making it hard for those employers to switch. (Feel free to read up on so-called "Cadillac plans" during the original ACA negotiations for more details). The size of this market makes employers exiting a non-starter IMO. Any org that wants to exit will see a huge resistance to this change even if they can showcase all the common benefits.
reply