I don't think it's right to categorize "no consequences".
Leadership made a decision and that decision was bad. This happens all the time, including allocating budget for staff. Any effective organization is going to judge the outcomes of these types of decisions and it's going to come up in performance and hiring. If this was an isolated situation then possibly they won't fire anyone over it. But you really need the context to judge whether the response was correct.
Wasting company resources and making the company look bad in the press won't be rewarded, and that includes at the board level to the CEO.
dot-com bubble companies were not good companies. They either built something that was not novel so it could be copied, or had insufficient value to monetize. We'll see the same with current AI.
Similar to the invention of the web, AI is not a bubble. Real value has been created.
I think of certain types of knowledge as one way functions. In order to acquire the knowledge you have to search a huge key space or experience costly elimination of options. Once you know the answer it feels obvious and intuitive. We have accumulated so much of this knowledge now that we have a hard time intuitively understanding the gap between people without it and us.
Like air travel and hotel rooms. Even market based approaches like eBay have different prices for the same things. I'm not for dynamic pricing but it's pretty common.
Aren't there wiretapping laws that make recording conversations in certain situations illegal? I love the idea of this type of technology but it seems tricky to deploy from a moral and legal perspective.
I'm generally a proponent of soft limits on almost everything. It's better to hit some artificial cap than to end up chewing away on a transaction forever or crashing some service that can't allocate the memory to deal with it. In this case a limit on gems in an account, packs in a transaction, packs in an account, etc.
I suspect your question is rhetorical but I, and quite a few other Marxists, would say yes. Dividends, stock buybacks and other types of profit should be banned.
How is this a workable system!? Why would anyone pay them. This seems like fraud on the part of the phone networks for billing for service that was never provided or should have been provided cheaper.
Dynamodb is very scalable and effective at keeping operational cost down. It succeeds at it's goals by trading off on lots of things though. As a developer it can feel almost hostile. Adhoc queries are limited almost forcing you to have a complete second copy of the data. Access patterns must be designed up front and hope you don't need to change much when you hit scale. The tooling is meh. It's easier to make a scalable database when you push all those problems on your devs. Constraints are tricky. Transactions must be carefully designed. It's nice to know that almost definitely read and write throughput will scale and you can reduce the DBA/DevOps staff because AWS handles it.
postgres has a version of this preempts idea with default values on columns. postgres will fill in the value at query time without needing to backfill the data. postgres is not a horizontally scalable database like FDB so not a direct comparison. In practice this means the migration lock is much shorter and it becomes possible to actually have a default in large tables.
Tick bites are not mostly avoidable. It is mostly avoidable to have one on you for > 24 hours by checking constantly. Numbers of ticks have increased the past 2 years in my area of NH. I have gotten them walking from my car to the house. Also if you have animals that are treated with tick medicine they bring the ticks inside and then the tick drops off so you can get them in your house.