It's a super interesting direction! That's one of the long term goals of interp research: deconstruct model behavior into circuits of features, and then turn those circuits into code (that we can maybe even formally verify!).
I won't say REST is perfect, but I much prefer it to an unstructured api where anything goes. You didn't suggest that, but you really didn't suggest any alternative.
What's the alternative to relying on documentation? Is relying on documentation even a bad thing?
I didn't suggest an alternative because, while I have more specific opinions on that matter, almost any alternative a person pulls out of a hat would be superior to REST.
> I much prefer it to an unstructured api where anything goes.
You're entitled to your opinion, and while I'm sure you didn't mean it to be a straw man, it's essentially the type of straw man I hear a lot when I broach this subject.
Whether an API is "unstructured" doesn't depend that much on what said API is advertised to be acting like. Plenty of RESTful APIs in the wild don't completely adhere to REST or supplemental "standards" like JSON:API. My point about documentation is that, because using a REST API inevitably means reading documentation, and because assumptions about a REST API cannot always be made, then one might as well abandon REST and build an API that doesn't include the extras of REST that are rarely necessary. This doesn't imply unstructuredness. Most programmers don't like building things that don't have a useful amount of predictability to them, so to me the worry about structure is actually concern over very junior programmers doing very junior programmery things. I'm just not interested in that problem, and I don't think most programmers need to be.
So let's just say a programmer, or a team of programmers, implement an API that uses their own convention that they invented, and they provide extremely readable and thorough documentation. Where's the problem?
Documentation is a necessity. One of my arguments against REST is that it implies a high amount of intuitiveness that it can only even attempt to possess with extremely simplistic data. As soon as it makes sense to have a POST endpoint that acts more like an RPC than a REST API, that throws the entire decision to adhere to REST under question, and that sort of thing is not uncommon.
There's been a surge in discussion of online cheating in poker. some online poker players certainly use real time assistance. There's also bots grinding online too.
The prevalence is an open question, though. I imagine it's rather high since there's a huge incentive to cheat.
There have been effectively unbeatable 1v1 limit hold’em bots online for at least 15 years - this has been a problem for a long time. Poker popularity ebbs and flows, we seem to be in a bit of a “boom” period right now.
There might be some issues with web sockets over a cellular connection. I'm no expert, but I've read that historically there are issues there. This might not be the case anymore though.
It may be easy to cycle hosts in and out, but it can also be time consuming, apparently. In the article it mentions taking 45 days to patch all hosts. The article also points out that this is too long for security updates.
Nothing will work 100% of the time. If their patching mechanism is thoroughly tested and battle hardened, I think the risk would be acceptable. Once you do the initial kpatch security upgrade, you could even schedule the machine for serivce so that it's not relying on that, limiting your exposure to bugs.
Kind of like replacing a portion of unoptimized compiler code with hand written assembly?