I'd say the government is far more capable of determining what's in the best interest of their children than the parents, but in its current state they don't leverage that capability or even have a desire to do so.

The chances that a parent has the same access to child psychologists, researchers, teacher's associations, and any other groups necessary to determine the child's best interests is laughable. The chances that a parent will base their decisions more from their own biases and ignorance than on careful research is high.

But the chances that the government in practice will do all of those things, and put in practices to effectively allow parents / teachers / etc to provide feedback on an individual child to make exceptions to broad rules, are also laughably low. So in practice it's far better to allow parents to make those decisions, even though I wouldn't consider it ideal.

Agreed completely. If a parent helps the kid register, there shouldn't be any problem here. Working as intended as far as I'm concerned.

Why not just use Unreal Engine? I'd do the same thing as this parent.

No it won't. It may change the wording, but not the answer. I just asked Gemini what the capital of the US was five times using Google, and got five unique responses. All of them said it was Washington DC though.

No, they said Google tells the truth 90% of the time, not 10%.

How does any of what you said matter? Even if you think making $140K isn't upper middle class, the research still shows more people are going from $90k to $140k than those who are going from $90k to $40k. It still shows that more people in the middle class, however you define it, are going up in income than are going down.

These categories are just arbitrary lines used to make it easier for people to identify and understand the insights analysts are able to pull from the data. And however you slice it, the data shows a story of improvement. Not as much improvement as I'd like to say, but improvement overall. We have been seeing the same trend for 30+ years.

What this story doesn't show is the dark side of an otherwise good development. Most people don't really notice day-to-day how much better off the 1% are because there are so few of them (by definition). But when a growing number of people see 30%+ of people around them living much better lives, they begin to notice.

The smallest (and only) open weight model that gets Opus or Sonnet level coding performance is MiniMax M2.5, and you need about 512GB of VRAM for that model (with enough room for input tokens). At 128GB you are looking at Opus 4.0 / Haiku 4.5 level models like Qwen 3.5 122B-A1 at Q4 or Qwen3-Coder-Next 80B-A3B at Q8.

I think it's likely we will have small language models that specifically target coding that are at Opus 4.6 quality on 128-256GB of VRAM in the next couple years, I don't think we are there yet.

AI-generated code is just this generation's version of copying code from the web or from another part of the codebase. Sometimes that person understood the code fully, and sometimes they just checked to see if the output matched what they expected.

The only uniquely dangerous thing about this recent iteration of that problem is the massive scale.

No, CEOs are trying to show their board, investors, and activist investors that they have a plan for how to take advantage of AI and can at least keep up with their competitors use of AI, if not surpass them. I work at a large enterprise (close to 50k employees) and VPs are being told that they need to find ways for AI to have an impact on their department or their leaders will find someone who can. If it isn't happening fast enough consultants are brought in to take over their department's transformative roadmap and leaders who can't keep up are relegated to being SMEs until they are eventually replaced. I'm not in the room when that message is given, but I've seen the rapid shift of VPs who were raising alarms nearly immediately turn into AI cheerleaders.

If you work for a publicly traded or VC backed company I assure you your CEO does not have a choice on whether to jump on the AI bandwagon. That's not how hype driven bubbles work.

What is sudden about this? CEOs have been doing this for over two years (at least). Duolingo and Klarna were among the first, and both of those were in Q1 2024. This is not new behavior.

Sora was useless because the primary value from video generation is porn. Anyone not willing to allow porn shouldn't be wasting their time on GenAI video R&D.

Every company has values. A value is simply a judgement about what is important. Maximizing shareholder value is absolutely a company value (probably the most common one). Maximizing customer, employee, or society value would be different values a company could have. There are plenty of companies that focus on customer or society value, but they are usually nonprofit. If someone is investing in a company they usually expect to be the most import stakeholder to the company.

Most companies don't actually document their company values. They use principles like Integrity and Excellence that are simply core principles that every company should strive for. You can tell if your company's values are "real" if you could imagine another successful company having nearly opposite values (without breaking the law).

Not every company should appeal to every investor, employee, or company. I wanted to work for companies in my youth that worked me to the bone while accelerating my career growth. Now that I have a family I want to work for a company that respects my personal time. I'm glad there are companies out there with different values so I was able to choose employers who aligned with my values at the time.

The believe the main reason is because semiannually is the standard in the rest of the Western world, so if a change is made it makes sense to align with that. About half of EU public companies now file semiannually after they changed their regulations in 2013.

It doesn't just screw over the little guy. It screws over retirees that are in the phase of their life where they are selling assets for income.

That's not the same thing. The question was perhaps a little vague but it was still pretty clear he meant paying more than the sticker price.