I never change the HVAC settings, and the radio settings only when crossing international borders.

Based on my experience, I am almost certain you are right: the static cofe analyzer / static application security testing tool that I have used professionally needs fewer resources than an LLM. But on the other hand, an LLM might catch things that the special purpose tool does not. The guy I interviewed said the race conditions escaped his static analyzer, and I've seen even a locally hosted mid-size (120B parameter) LLM flag cut-and-paste errors that an SCA tool might miss. (I did not run a dedicated analysis tool on the latter code, so I can't say for sure whether it would have missed the error, but my gut says it would have been missed.)

As the eagle scene is not at the end of the Hobbit book, you are spoiler-safe.

My question wasn't really meant to be about method chaining, but about the tedious boilerplate around testing error result values. There are answers to that also (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18771569/avoid-checking-if-error-is-nil-repetition#18772200) but the general answer is still that you have to just suck it up and have N or N-1 "if err != nil { return ... }" blocks.

Well, most of us don't have the specific experience to know whether AI is useful enough for Chris Mason's specific use case, but we have enough from our own.

I have found that AI is good enough for a first draft of code, or for providing comments on existing code -- but I want a human to review whatever it generates, and would expect the normal suite of other tools (linters, SAST/DAST, fuzzers, etc.) to pass the code before publishing it. I recently interviewed someone else with 25-ish years of professional experience developing software, and his assessment was that AI tools are very good at reviewing code as well. He said that the tool he used at his current job was able to diagnose some race conditions that he and a coworker both overlooked.

So I think the real questions are: What specific use cases can AI help you (specifically) with? How quickly is that set of use cases changing, and in what directions?

OK, please tell me how to avoid writing code like this:

a, err := foo()
if err != nil {
    return fmt.Errorf("foo failed: %w", err)
}
 
b, err := bar(a)
if err != nil {
    return fmt.Errorf("bar failed: %w", err)
}

(Ignore for the moment whether you're using a version of Go that rejects the second "err :=", which requires kludgier code, and that both "foo" and "bar" will be much longer in real life.)

Yes and no. Even big budget productions can botch the 3D experience a lot. My prime example is the ending of the first Hobbit movie, when the eagles carry the dwarfs, Gandalf and Bilbo away. This scene does not make sense in 3D, because details that are necessary in 2D like Depth of Field do not work in 3D, where you can choose what to focus your eyes on. Being forced to see the eagles in focus, and the background blurred was killing depth perception to me. Additional, the perspective suggested by the size of the different eagles clash with the depth perception given by the 3D effect, throwing me off again.

I love this result.

Butâ¦I also saved for many decades and am fine living on my small catamaran catching fish and ignoring the world.

Sucks you all had to have the latest car and binge Netflix all those years.

I, Steve Wozniak, did not participate in the theft of the BASIC. It was funny to me to see others enjoying doing this. I had never used BASIC myself, at that time, only the more-scientific languages like Fortran, Algol, and PL-1, and several assembly languages. I sniffed the air and sensed that you needed BASIC to sell computers into homes, because of the book 101 Games in BASIC. I loved games and saw games as the key. It was the [MS] BASIC that inspired me to write a BASIC interpreter for my 6502 processor, in order to have a more useful computer.

Trump's electorate cares about renewable energy - sabotaging it is for them Owning The Libs.

Trump's donors care about renewable energy - it's that pesky cheap competition they want to thwart.

I'm a Finn and I do mind!

Finnish homes don't traditionally have cooling AC, because it hasn't been necessary. In the past, we might get a few days over 30 C (with high humidity) in the summer. In recent years, we've experienced much longer heat waves, such as a few weeks in a row. Consequently, a lot of people have fitted air heat pumps, and those can also be used for heating in the winter using reversed flow direction. But even now, cooling AC is rarely installed in new buildings, because apparently the design/construction companies are full of climate change deniers. Office buildings usually have proper AC, so those with traditional indoor jobs don't suffer that much from daytime heat.

Paradoxically, global heating has also caused colder winters in some sense. Right now we're in a middle of an extra long cold spell. This is apparently because global warming affects polar regions much more, and the polar vortex/jetstream/something has been disrupted. As a result, we get weeks and weeks of the same extreme weather, be it summer or winter. I won't even go into the possible disruption of the Gulf stream, which would cause further cooling up here.

I've always thought active cooling in large scale is kind of idiotic, because you're pumping the heat out into the atmosphere, thus resulting in need for more AC. While it might not contribute that much to actual global warming, the local effect is quite noticeable in cities such as NYC. Somehow, people in the Middle East and elsewhere have figured out better cooling solutions centuries ago, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . There are also basic building methods that reduce the need for AC, such as painting the outside walls white, sensible positions and sizes of windows, and using awnings on them. Growing trees to shade the buildings also helps a lot in a number of ways.

I think it plausible that 99% of new energy this year come from renewable sources because many of those sources come from renewable types with relatively short construction times.

Up until recently, the US adds about 50 GW of capaicty per year. There's a huge uptick in generation capacity because of energy demands from data centers, so recently it's more like 65 GW/year. The challenge is you can't exploit *this year's* high market prices by starting a nuclear power plant that won't come on line for a decade. Even a combined cycle natural gas plant is going to take five years. But you can have a wind farm up and running in months.

It's not the renewability *per se* that's driving this; it's profiting from the high prices before the AI bubble bursts. Nobody is rushing to bring new hydropower or geothermal plants online, and they're just as renewable as wind or solar.

This move to renewables is not about changing the world. it's about short term financial optimization. But these short term, local optimizations *will* change the world, and planning to handle the transformations driven by short-term market forces is going to take coordinated, long term national action. At present there are regional mandates that will stabilize the local grid against variations in electricity supply. But carving up the nation into small regional markets means higher prices and economic inefficiencies where electricity is transfered from high price areas to stabilize low price areas. Market economics don't work if there are non-market forces (stability) that trump profitability.

Strictly speaking, Gates' name appearing in the files as a "note to self" isn't dispositive of anything. Epstein was a sociopath, and while he was profoundly and disturbingly weird, not a dummy. He'd already been publicly exposed and convicted of child procurement. So he knew he was radioactive. He might well choose to salt his own records with poison pills.

But that's the context we shouldn't miss: Epstein was publicly known to be a child trafficker years before Bill Gates initiated his contact with him. And Bill Gates has people to look out for him and extensive contacts with Epstein's clientele. He must have known. So the parsimonious explanation is that he was seeking out what Epstein uniquely could provide.

As for Gates, he's really smart in a certain way; he's probably usually the smartest guy in the room. But not one-in-a-million smart. I bet a lot of us know people who are smarter than he is. What his history shows is a willingness to act ruthlessly and transgress legal or ethical rules for personal gain, while being aware of reputational risk. I'm not reducing him to a cartoon villain — he may genuinely care about issues like malaria. But he understands the value of curating his reputation. Epstein is a perfect match for him: high school math teacher smart, sociopathic, but obsessed with amassing social capital through connections with academics with tech-bro appeal that opened doors.

It is indisputable that Gates had a relationship with Epstein — Gates himself doesn't deny it. Gates is contesting the veracity of what Epstein wrote in his files, and you know what? I think ithose things are likely false. If Gates needed to score some antibiotics on the DL, he wouldn't need to beg is pedophile buddy. But if Occam's razor serves here, the STD story is just a distraction. Getting or not getting and STD would just be a matter of luck. It wouldn't change the fact Gates sought association with a known child sex trafficker.

And here’s the other big piece of context we shouldn’t miss: while appearance in the Epstein files isn’t strictly dispositive of anything, the unprecedented structure of Epstein’s plea agreement and the resulting absence of federal prosecution constitute a smoking gun for deliberate non-enforcement by law enforcement. From this, we can reasonably infer that powerful individuals were being shielded from scrutiny. Epstein received an extraordinarily lenient deal that explicitly immunized unnamed co-conspirators — an inversion of standard prosecutorial practice, where defendants are typically flipped to expose broader conspiracies. It is reasonable to infer, in the absence of any credible explanation, that prosecutors were motivated to protect those co-conspirators for some reason.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"

Since billions of people believe in him, that wasn't a very good trick.

I am a very lame producer, but I make really good money at it. It started as a hobby back in 2015.

I use Ai now with all our customers. We will NEVER hire anyone who has EVER used the word "SAG" in their resume or social media profile.

SAG => monopoly => control who can act => if you don't agree with SAG's politics, you can't act.

It's well past time to remove SAG from the market through market forces. Ai is absolutely AMAZING for my client base, they love being able to change the race, gender, location of a commercial with a few clicks.

I absolutely can't wait to send these SAG clowns packing.