A modern cellphones have only about 10 replaceable assemblies[1] - repairers aren't typically replacing individual broken chips, an entire assembly/part. "[knowing] what you're looking for" is easy of you know what broke the device, or following basic troubleshooting steps.
Getting into repairs these days is easy; YouTube, Alibaba, Forums/File-sharing sites, USB-C and Open Source firmware-flashing tools have conspired to lower the bar of entry. If you have an old phone in your device drawer with a damaged screen or unusable battery, you probably can fix it yourself, with the right tools and some patience.
Do you run your coding harness in a completely segregated sandbox? Even folder names of what projects you have, what projects you actually work on, etc are very useful for targeted advertising.
You can even use /model to use Opus 4.5 if you want. Broadly though I find Opus 5 and most of their point releases (4.7 being the exception) to be excellent and upgrades.
If your legal system depends on the benevolence of prosecutors, you've already lost before it began.
Attorneys are supposed to be adversarial. The system's soundness shouldn't depend on anything more than them trying to win and not doing anything illegal.
Before "prosecutor" became an elected/appointed office, prosecutors were independent contractors, hired for a single case only and serving at the pleasure of the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury's job was to decide how to spend the public prosecution budget. "Indictment" meant exactly that "prosecuting this person is a good use of tax dollars" and nothing more. We should go back to that.
Any system ultimately depends on the benevolence (or at least the decency) of the people in it. The idea that a society can design a perfect system and it will run itself is very dangerous.
Fun and learning is a really good reason. It also reminds me of the damascene: trying to achieve something that doesn't feel possible, and working through all the extreme resource-constrained engineering limits.
I think most of my embedded projects aren't that useful, but they've taught me a lot.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I think this goes beyond impractical, it's doomed from the get go.
In my book, impractical means "I built a cuckoo wristwatch". Beyond impractical: "I built a cuckoo wristwatch but there was no room for a working mechanism".
I don't see the relationship between "fun and learning" and "(beyond) impractical".
I enter most of my learning project from the assumption that I could just buy/install whatever I am building and save time/money.
Please consider seeing things from a different perspective than "your book".
Not saying this to antagonise you, but because a lot of time reading comments like this makes other posters less willing to share their impractical efforts, and would love to read more of those, not less.
Good. Google's approach here is manifestly predator, unfair, and IMO illegal. They deserve to be in court for this behaviour, and mandating owners give consent for AI training or drop out of Google; which is just a non-starter because they're a search monopoly.
That's exactly what antitrust laws are supposed to do, and I hope at least EU regulators take action. Every single Googlebot crawl in your access logs is a trace for damages.
The irony here is that the people blocking all other crawlers are the ones shoring up their monopoly. If you can't block Googlebot because you need the search traffic but you block everybody else so that nobody other than Google can index your site, how do you expect to ever get any search traffic that isn't from Google?
Search traffic is nose diving due to LLM use. The fundamental calculus with google is you install GA and it helps your SEO has changed and google is riding out what will eventually wither as people start to reevaluate the trade off.
It's nose diving due to Google putting the LLM answer box at the top of the search results. But then isn't it even worse to be blocking every search engine crawler that isn't doing that?
Even companies like OpenAI segregate their training crawlers (GPTBot for general corpus training; OAI-SearchBot for their search index inclusion; and ChatGPT-User for user-driven agentic browser use, etc).
When even OpenAI is more respectful of intellectual property and website owner control than you, that's a problme.
> Even companies like OpenAI segregate their training crawlers (GPTBot for general corpus training; OAI-SearchBot for their search index inclusion; and ChatGPT-User for user-driven agentic browser use, etc).
They have three different user agent strings, anyway. The problem is obviously that you can't tell what someone does with data after you give it to them.
You also don't know that some third party isn't crawling the web with the user agent string "OAI-SearchBot" and then using the results for training or selling the data to the likes of Anthropic or OpenAI without telling them that.
In general attempting to use the user agent string for access control is not going to work and it seems like Google is being the less disingenuous party on this one by not blowing smoke.
I think it's bad, because everybody is desperate to hold onto every last bit of google search traffic they can, so they're going to allow training to do so. Google's predatory, unfair and illegal actions will continue as they have with a few $100 million slaps in the wrist from the EU and a few more white house dinners for their CEO.
This had me in disbelief since the minute I saw it: Google's "AI overview" presumably trained on content from other websites, disincentivizes users from clicking through to those websites..
Except that officially, that is not what they do? It's a dick move not to put the two usecases under separate user agents, but their documentation says you're free to block Google-Extended via robots.txt which is used for training and grounding, while still being included in the search index.
Exclusion from grounding does mean that your site won't get sourced in the AI overview, but I'm not sure what the click through rates are like on those.
The western AI crawlers are generally very-well behaved. GPTBot and ClaudeBot are nice crawlers and I see them respecting my robots.txt.
There are of course plenty of mystery, obfuscated/camouflaged scrapers/crawlers from god knows whom. Thankfully they are easy to spot and ban, although I've definitely thought about deliberating sending them poisoned data.
it’s likely to do with the fact that the parent comment here laid out a thoughtful basis / argument for their “good”, providing some detail to their justification for it.
that’s just my take/feedback, take it or leave it. i won’t be engaging further as i already feel i’m going against the site guidelines with this!
I don't think there's been any official confirmation, but even Fable safeguards seem to have gotten quite a bit of tuning, is less trigger-happy and less like regex matching.
For reaching out to a seller/merchant, I found it helps significantly if you google translate into Chinese, and just communicate in Chinese.
reply