When you "steal" a secret, it's not longer a secret. When you "steal" credit, the original thinker no longer gets credit. In both cases, the thing itself was destroyed: in the former, the secret is no longer a secret at all and in the latter the boss will no longer be considered the mastermind behind the idea. When you "pirate" something the original copy remains and the creator retains it and the rights to sell copies of it and will still benefit from selling copies. It's not theft.
I've recently implemented hooks that make it impossible for Claude to use tools that I don't want it to use. You could consider setting up a tool that errors if if they do an unsafe use of sed (or any use of sed if there are safer tools).
Maybe with the right tweaks to how pieces move and interact, a 12D version of chess could be coherent. Here's a chess game with a measley 5 dimensions, IIRC pieces could interact with each other through time.
The tweaks, I think, would have to be substantial: see for example 3D tic-tac-toe where the objective had to be changed to “get as many three-in-rows as you can” because getting just one is trivial and the opponent has no chance.
My personal experience was that the shame I'd been made to feel throughout middle school for being overweight fueled the motivation to buckle down and lose weight when I was independent and mature enough to come up with a diet that I could sustain.
I’ll offer this argument: Society aggressively tells overweight people that it is bad to be overweight, in no uncertain terms, and with significant repercussions. Yet overweight people exist. Hence, the strategy of shaming people until they lose weight does not work in the general or average case.
I guess the question then becomes, what problem does a multi-tenancy setup solve that an isolated database setup doesn't? Are they really not solving the same problem for a user perspective, or is it only from their own engineering perspective? And how do those decisions ultimately impact the product they can surface to users?
Off the top of my head, managing 100 different database instances takes a lot more work from the business standpoint than managing 1 database with 100 users.
The article also mentioned that they isolate by project_id. That implies one customer (assume a business) can isolate permissions more granulary.
With multi-tenant vs multi-database decision one driver would be the level of legal/compliance/risk/cost/resource drivers around how segregated users really are.
Multi-database is more expensive generally but is a more brain dead guaranteed way to ensure the users are properly segregated, resilient across cloud/database/etc software releases that may regress something in a multi-tenant setup.
Multi-tenant you always run the risk of a software update, misconfiguration or operational error exposing existence of other users / their metadata / their data / their usage / etc. You also have a lot more of a challenge engineering for resource contention.
Agreed, in Multi-tenant, where the user/customer owns the data, I always reach for SQLite first. Each user/customer gets their own SQLite DB. Then you have a common PG/SQLite DB for any common metadata, billing, etc.
That way when a customer leaves or they want a backup copy of their data, it's a rm <customer>.sqlite3 or .backup away.
Sometimes you can't do that for various (almost always non-technical) reason(s), but it's always my 1st choice.
It's definitely the "least-worst option", most of the time, but I'd rather be able to eat _something_ with my friends when we go out to do something. At burger joints the burgers are usually otherwise dressed to impress, dripping with cheese and some awesome sauce; those are quite good with an Impossible patty subbed in. But American restaurants in my experience offer a selection of very, very sad foods, because they simply don't know how to make food taste good without meat. Vegan and vegetarian restaurants and many ethnic restaurants make excellent food. It's a cultural problem.
reply