I'm not sure online sales were ever part of Walmart's core competencies; I suspect they contracted all that stuff out to third parties.

The reason I suspect that is that one of my relatives bought a product from Walmart.com and needed to return it, so she called the number listed on the front page of the Walmart.com web site (and dialled it correctly; I later double-checked the call record on her phone against the walmart.com web page), and the representative who answered put her on hold, then forwarded her to a scammer who tried to trick her into allowing him to TeamViewer in to her computer remotely. When she refused, he got increasingly abusive and eventually hung up on her.

So whomever Walmart was contracting for online support, they were at least bribable, and arguably criminal.

They'd better be giving these refrigerators out for free, or at an insane discount that they plan to make up for via ad revenue. Otherwise, there's no reason for that feature to exist.

Solutions starting with "everybody in society must" have a long and celebrated tradition of going immediately (and often horrifically) pear-shaped, as it inevitably turns out that most of everybody doesn't want to, and therefore won't, and in many cases, can't.

For examples, see the Soviet Union's Communism, China's Great Leap Forward, the Khmer Rouge's agricultural collectivism, North Korea's juche, etc.

... this year. And next year, the same logic will have us getting rid of all of the entry-level employees, and the year after that, the mid-level employees, and some years from now, all employees. Yay, progress?

Comedians will do anything that works to get a laugh, but sourcing jokes from ChatGPT (or similar) is not an effective way to get a laugh. Comedy is based on surprise, and LLMs are based on summarizing old material, so there's a bit of a mismatch there.

Well, sure, in the same way a 747 is just a fancy mechanical bird. Which is to say, yes, but no.

Because people aren't solitary islands whose deaths harm only themselves. Anyone who has lived on Earth for more than a few days has formed relationships with other people, and suicide is the murder of a person those people have a relationship with. Suicide harms everyone who interacts with or depends on that suicider for anything, in much the same way that the murder of that person would.

Yes, that is precisely the problem.

Perl was way ahead of its time... they were doing "vibe coding" back in the 1990's :)

All true, which is why China's system isn't completely centralized like that. Centralization is a matter of degree, not a binary on/off switch. The Chinese government mandates the broad strokes, and leaves the detail work decentralized, to be handled by the market. They've got a lot more capitalism in their system at this point than they'd probably care to admit.

Waymo is currently at 250,000 autonomous rides per week, in six cities, and I mean autonomous in the strict sense of "there are no Waymo employees in the car". They seem to be competing pretty well.

As for how other companies will compete against Tesla in the future when Tesla finally makes good on their ambitious promises.... we'll find out, if and when Tesla finally makes good on their ambitious promises. You shouldn't count those chickens until they've hatched.

That reminds me of the Mark Twain quote: "Good judgement is the result of experience, and experience is the result of bad judgement".

i.e. you certainly can become an expert yourself, eventually, but you'll probably make some sub-optimal financial decisions in the process.

AI could provide the push to finally popularize secure, authenticated email, if only because the phishing attempts will become so realistic that there will be no other way to distinguish your grandma from a foreign scammer :/

I concur with that (I'm 52, no more 10-hour marathons at the keyboard for me!).

Note however that the proper metric to measure isn't "time elapsed to create code", but "time elapsed to get that code sufficiently bug-free that you can ship it to customers without it causing a mess".

Any high-school student (or AI) can write code that looks reasonable and passes the basic acceptance tests. The real trick is getting that last 1% correct, so that the code can "just run" indefinitely, unsupervised, for all use-cases, without crashing or misbehaving or otherwise requiring a human being's time to manage it.

We'll have to do that also, and if the problem was just a single, one-time step-change (i.e. "we'll have to live in temperature range B from now on, instead of traditional temperature range A"), that would be sufficient.

But it's not that easy, is it? The climate changes, and as long as we keep increasing the CO2 content of the amosphere, the climate keeps changing more.

So we could adapt to the climate we expect to be living in 20 years from now, but without also solving the emissions problem, that won't be enough: we'll have to adapt again some years after that, to a climate that's even worse. And again, some years after that, and so on, likely until our only remaining way to "adapt" is through mass die-offs.

Sir, you are mistaken. All those Bitcoins aren't going to mine themselves!