andy800

How is identity verified in Europe? Every hotel I've checked into there wanted a passport.

"escorted to my room" is entirely different than the story described here. And "other hotels/resorts" don't have over 5000 rooms and thousands of additional visitors to the casino, clubs, shows, restaurants, who are not hotel guests.

> maybe you won’t run into this crap

What "crap"? He didn't have ID. The employees should simply hand out keys on the honor system?

As I mentioned, there are numerous parts of the story that don't add up. The MGM Grand, as I stated, has over 5000 rooms, a random front desk agent would not be able to verify identity by describing the layout of one specific room (nor would that be compliant with security procedures).

The car park machine, "popped to the desk," driving or wandering Las Vegas without ID, the identity procedure... I'm comfortable with my assessment that there is something not entirely correct with the story. You are welcome to disagree.

They were interacting with the car park machine.

The MGM Grand is massive, over 5000 rooms. It's about a 1/4 mile from self park to the front desk. Nobody "pops" anywhere in that building.

Also, who drives without ID?

If MGM refuses to pay up then it must have confidence that they have sufficient backups and can get everything up and running again.

I had (still have) serious doubts that they have the expertise and discipline (as well as all the vendor systems it relies on) but I will have to give them credit if true and they can get back to 100% without paying a ransom.

At the same time, the source of this article may be completely fabricating all his/her claims, there's obviously no confirmation of any of it at this point.

Quite a few systems were likely pulled offline as a preventive measure, though it may be indistinguishable to a customer from a "hack"

I'll be fine, thanks. The context from allenrb is that casinos have no value to society, so that eliminating them (and therefore all the related jobs) is not a loss to anyone. That includes the employees you are referring to in your comment, and without much regard for the people heading there for a vacation.

Your opinion is valid, however I'm currently on a plane heading there, likely a third of the passengers won't be able to check into their hotel. Same with dozens of planes. Kinda sucks for them.

Casino-based attacks aren't really because the casino has a lot of money around. 1) they have large, very detailed databases with extensive customer records (photos of drivers licenses, for example) that can are desirable on black markets 2) easy attack vector -- heavily dependent on a variety of vendor software and systems that are way out of date, run by weak, underpaid and often uninformed IT staffs unaware of some basic security vulnerabilities 3) being customer-facing and highly-regulated, casino companies are typically heavily incented to simply pay the ransom rather than face regulatory scrutiny and consumer distrust (and to restore cash flow, and because the soft IT teams probably didnt make comprehensive backups...)

MGM operates all 3 of those

The companies themselves are not owned by VICI, the land and properties are, and Caesars and MGM (and other casino operators) pay VICI rent.

Appreciate the suggestion. Even if it helps SEO it degrades the user experience (extra clicks before getting to the actual job listing) and a lot of resources (already sending a somewhat large payload to the client). The source listings themselves are not in any standard format, initially I did want to enable a job description on hover/click but they are often unreliable in formatting or sequencing or taxonomy, which is problematic. Still worth considering, thank you.

So when the person is starting to enter an email address, the page goes red until he enters the .com at the end? He gets an error for the first 9 digits of a phone number? Do you implement debouncing?

There isn't one thing called "conventional React", there are all kinds of validation libraries on npm and many strategies laid out on Stack Overflow. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41296668/how-do-i-add-va...

I think it's fair to say we have different opinions on good UX, no need to debate it any further

Not hostile at all, and we arent degrading the user experience -- much improving it, in my opinion. With HTMX you can do real-time validation on each input element on the server and provide instant visual cues to the user anytime one fails. https://htmx.org/examples/inline-validation/

Moreover, HTMX makes it incredibly easy to change the whole paradigm of submitting data. You can eliminate some forms entirely and just enable a series of individual questions/inputs/selects one at a time, especially useful when a single static form isn't always appropriate (multiple pathways, questions/options that are contingent on the response to a previous question, etc).

In my experience the UI flow and degree of detail for avoiding common errors is greatly improved.

Damn, for a second I thought this was like weedmaps but for linguini (which would be an awesome site) and then I looked a bit closer. Still cool though!

https://www.casinojoblist.com, which I hope is self-explanatory. Updated daily.

Problem is getting any kind of SEO success. The site is functional and designed to be as easy to use as possible, what it doesn't have are any articles, blogs, ads, pricing, or distractions (other than multiple casino-related themes, for a little bit of flair). What's good for users (I hope) seems to suppress any presence in search engines, however.

I see it as much more, many things can be stripped out altogether. Client-side state management. Client-side input validation. Fallbacks for when data hasn't been loaded yet. Less async-based code, less coordination-required and event-driven code (this stuff happens but much easier and often code-free with HTMX).

Its not a fit for every site or use case but more than any other front-end tool or library or framework, it has enabled me to actually realize the UI concepts in my head to the actual screen, and usually a lot quicker than I'd expect.

Not a valid excuse, dude. You have every right to be skeptical or to avoid "bleeding edge" but to assume the whole thing is just a front to raise someone's speaking/blogging/social media profile, to buzz in from nowhere and start off by declaring that it's going to "die" is not the way to act if you "genuinely want to know."

Recursivedoubts has legitimately demonstrated he's not a one-trick pony (previously built intercooler, concurrently building hyperscript) and he deals with skeptics like yourself dozens of times every time an HTMX article gets posted on this site (which all seem to go to #1, if that serves as an indicator of the library's popularity). He handles himself with grace and patience and humor, far better than most of us would do.

You don't even state what your "current approach" happens to be in order for him, or anyone else, to provide you with a satisfactory answer.

With a little creativity, HTMX can enable some extremely UX-friendly interactive sites. Keep in mind that it makes it trivially easy to entirely swap out small, or large, sections of a web page. So things that used to be standard boring forms can be interactive step-by-step pathways that adapt to the user's selections. Very easy to deliver progress updates and validation cues to users that seem to appear magically without page reloads. It's still early but HTMX continually inspires me (a poor designer) to execute new UI ideas because it makes it very simple to conceptualize how they can be built (and simple to actually build). Tailwind is also essential in this process, for me.

- we spent at least 6x of your estimate

- we would have been fine continuing to use a non-expiring v2 beta, but the developer set it up differently (eventually, a non-expiring version was provided)

- we never asked for support, just to not have the software expire without a replacement available

> maybe invest in your tooling correctly...

So your suggestion is that businesses should avoid independent developers altogether? That's a great way to be supportive of the little guy.

There was a gap between the beta expiring and me reaching out and requesting an update, which you supplied. I think the first replacement also expired and we had to make another request but I could be wrong, I'm no longer at that company and have no way to verify. Maybe not.

I am not claiming you ripped us off or that your product is no good. Pretty sure we eventually purchased 4 licenses, because it is a good product. But better communication, taking the whole thing a bit more seriously, would go a long way. You knew what day the betas were expiring, instead of leaving all the customers hanging, you could have proactively sent everyone license keys or a longer-expiring version. You could have posted a quick status update on your web site. As I mentioned in another comment, I vouched for you internally and when asked about it months later (budget reviews, etc) with still just a beta version, I didn't have any answers.

Our initial purchase was made while v2 was in beta and with a promise of a free upgrade to the final v2, which was expected soon. Except it was never released, until now.

That's your opinion, and it's ok, but my employer bought the business version (4.5 whataburgers), and it bought multiple licenses (about 20 or 25 whataburgers, where's the tipping point?), plus I personally spent a lot of time (based on my compensation, likely 50+ whataburgers) vouching for a new vendor and then all the corporate b.s. like establishing purchase orders, creating new budget line items, etc, as well as justifying the purchase to IT dept which believes that Excel handles CSV files just fine.

Doesn't have to be flawless but a full year delay is a little much. I'm not even with that employer anymore.

ModernCSV is a good tool. However, from the viewpoint of a paying customer, it feels too much like a side/hobby project and that you aren't taking it all that seriously as a business. The v2 beta was announced in May 2022 with indications that the final v2 was just a few weeks/months away, as you announced the beta expiring June 25, 2022. Obviously v2 was not close to ready and paying users had to revert to v1 or to repeatedly request updated betas, each of which expired after a brief period. Your web site was not regularly updated with news or progress reports and the project appeared to be abandoned.

This is all fine for an open source project but once people are paying for a tool, using it daily, and are promised certain updates coming soon, it's not great to have that update delayed by a full year.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31576554

The University of Virginia, designed by Thomas Jefferson, features numerous brick serpentine walls.

https://www.google.com/search?q=uva+serpentine+walls&tbm=isc...

The "Big Deal" -- the game where the player chooses one of three doors -- was the finale of every episode of Let's Make a Deal under Monty Hall. Still is, in the Wayne Brady revival. Not hypothetical.

It exists at Calder also, Florida regs require pari-mutuel activity to qualify for a slot machine license. They replaced the expenses of running a horse racing meet (and cleared up tons of land they could sell) with jai-alai and they pay a few locals to put on an exhibition. I say exhibition because, although it is bettable, most games get fewer than $20 and the attendance is typically less than a local gym's pickup basketball game.

As far as solving the problem in an academic sense, your explanation is clearer. However, one of the things that makes the whole thing fascinating is that the actual players are not told this specific information, that the host knows. If you watch the show religiously it might dawn on you, hey, he must not be picking the preview door randomly because he has never accidentally revealed the car -- but that's beyond most people's observation.

In practice, the revelation of one door is likely to make the player even more committed to the original choice -- the odds (seemingly, not actually) just went from 33% to 50%, momentum is good, I'm feeling lucky, no way am I going to switch now!

To the best of my knowledge, this "question" was first presented to the general public around 1990 via a popular syndicated newspaper column, and quickly "went viral" the way things did back then, by being repeatedly discussed in newspaper and magazine columns all across America.

It's fascinating that 33 years later, there is still no simple explanation of the optimal strategy, such that most people would say "a-ha" when they hear it. In fact, most people actually express skepticism or disbelief when presented with the "correct" strategy.