Which is, of course, nonsense. Nothing stops you from making a copy of encrypted data. What sucks is that for a backup, you likely can't do incremental.

Maybe. Problem is, it only costs $1m for the Donald to issue a pre-emptive pardon.

It isn't about college grads being steamrolled by remote work. It is about college grads being steamrolled by offshoring.

It's complicated. The Millenials and GenZ have had a strong sense of entitlement earlier in their career, which has given the whole generation a negative reputation.

Previous generations paid their dues, learned the ropes, over many years, and if there was nobody to train them they might have still learned on their own. There was no expectation early on of a large salary, becoming team lead after six months, getting catered lunch or playing pool and table tennis during office hours.

Of course, not every current graduate is like that, but the age group as a whole is slightly tainted by their average expectations. So they're not necessarily the first pick when employers have a choice of candidates.

Yeah? So how come he never speaks and has the language comprehension of a 3-year-old?

In your case it might simply be that there was not enough of this kind of tasks in the training data.

How did you "just get" something that has yet to be released?

Absolutely! It's not even that hard to understand why. The company bottom line depends on matching the code with the business logic, and the incentive structure for the employee coder is aligned. A highly paid programmer thinks about what is actually needed and develops the requirements in accordance. If another highly paid programmer joins up, he will think about what is actually needed by the business too and converge on equivalent requirements. None of this makes sense to a junior programmer or a code completion tool.

It is the military's obligation to use the money they receive efficiently and effectively. All you've done here is claimed that they are complicit in failing to use the money effectively. The military, that is.

You misunderstand. The military should be spending money efficiently, not wasting it. This has nothing to do with the amount available, and everything to do with wasting money. The military literally decide how they waste the money they get from Congress.

Not believable. The transmission is initiated by the user who downloads the code. That's literally how it works. In your argument, you're removing agency from users, while also claiming that the author forced a user to ask its LLM or web browser to pull code and run it without inspecting it first. Occam's Razor disagrees.

Instead of a plot that was even more epic and had even more galactic significance, it just doubled-down on the family drama and kind of lumbered around, getting us nowhere new.

Be careful what you wish for. Increasing the stakes ever higher is not a winning move either. I seem to recall a plucky little show called SG-1 that was amazingly entertaining while constantly saving the Earth, then saving the Galaxy, then saving *another* galaxy, then saving the Universe, then playing with the fabric of Time and Space itself! It already went downhill after saving the Earth one too many times, but coasted on its laurels long enough that people didn't notice straight away. You can notice this more easily if you watch all the episodes in 2x.

Not really. I left Prime about 3 years ago, IIRC. I still get free deliveries almost always. How do I do it?

I shop for the item with advertised free delivery, and I don't choose the get it delivered in X hours option. You might say waiting 2 days for a free delivery is super bad inconvenient, but the reality is that most of the stuff I buy from uncle Jeff sits on a shelf until I get around to looking at it, sometimes for weeks or months.

I don't care if the delivery is a few hours or weeks early. I actually care more if I got a good price or if another shop around the world gave a better deal.

I agree in general, but not with this strong phrasing. I've let AI build a good amount of non-trivial code. But my consistent experience is that it works best when guided by an experienced coder who can correct it, and when implementing well-known algorithms rather than coming up with novel solutions.

Example: I let it write up a quadtree implementation in a language for which there was no ready solution online. It took 2-3 correcting prompts to get a good result. I could've done it myself but it would've likely taken a few hours to get it all right instead of the half or so hour it took with AI. The important part for me was that there's nothing unknown in how to implement a quadtree. All the AI needs to do is take the 100s of existing implementations and translate them into a different language.

True but too simplified. The Luddites had an entirely different motivation: The fact that factories now employed women and children at very low rates meant that the men lost their status in the family as bread winners and head of household. That was a major social disruption, which we don't have with AI.

I'd compare it more to teamsters or wagoners when cars became common. Your job is threatened by a different way of doing the same thing, a way to which your skills don't cleanly transition. Some choose to pick up the new tech, some want the old ways to persist.

In the end, coachmen became chauffeurs, because rich people prefer to be driven around oder driving themselves, no matter if it's a horse or an engine doing the pulling. But much fewer teamsters and wagoners became truck drivers.

Hmmm ... interesting.