Come the fuck on.

In my career, I have worked (professionally) with Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Linux, OS/2, SCO ODT/OSR, a bunch of shit I can't remember, and every Microsoft server platform since NT4. My current environment is 98% Microsoft. That doesn't make me stupid and incapable, that's just where my career took me.

Is... English not your first language? I ask because you appear to be way overthinking this.

The metaphor was perfectly clear to me when I read it.

About 25 years ago, I was at a bbq where I spent the evening chatting with this guy named Lars Knoll. Even though I was busting my butt with my team to develop the Opera for Linux web browser, this guy had been hired by TrollTech after he had developed something called Konquerer which was becoming the default HTML rendering engine in the KDE project. He wrote the whole thing on top of the KDE libraries which were painfully slow. He rendered text and for controls using the KDE objects which were rarely more than Qt objects with a little KDE specific stuff on top. I remember thinking "there's no point thinking much about this because there's no chance it could compete with a real browser like Opera".

Shortly after, I was in Cupertino sitting across from a strange product manager type. His name was Tim Cooke. We were discussing developing the default web engine for this new Mac OS X project which was coming along. We would have to develop for Carbon because Apple hadn't implemented Objective C++ yet and we were a C++ shop and we couldn't use half the developers in the company to make a C abstraction layer for Cocoa. We came to an agreement and Apple sent us a palette full of the latest G4 macs and screens. I remember fighting over the 21" screens like children. We had an idiot project manager who insisted that we implement the browser the way Adobe was demanding. It didn't matter that we were pretty much the "experts" on making cross platform embedded browser engines. He was like "Adobe said it... it must be done this way... they are gods".

Well long story short, while we were implementing a crap Carbon based browser engine using crap tools from Metrowerks instead of the good Apple tools (which weren't that good yet). Apple put together a team which abstracted the KDE libraries and built bindings to C and then Objective-C/Cocoa. And they abstracted out everything that was platform specific otherwise from KHTML (Konquerer's underlying html widget) and wrapped it in a Cocoa wrapper and a Carbon wrapper and shipped it as Webkit and Safari. And man did it suck.

Who would have ever imagined that Lars Knoll's half assed KDE web browser would have eventually become the defacto Web standard and the default web browsing engine in every operating system... including Windows... except the strange 5 user corner case operating systems.

Don't bash a project like this. It has value. I immediately considered that I have had many cases in recent times where it could have been of value to me. That said, I wouldn't run a C based web browser engine ever. It's not that you can't write a good web browser in C. It's just that it's the wrong tool for the job. At 160,000 lines, it's a small job to port to something else. When JavaScript evolves into a JIT and the JS runtime is thunking the heck out of the DOM, then it's pretty much no longer an option. Oh, and someone will think it's a good idea to implement proper form controls. That's an insanely massive project, especially when adding WebGL as well. If this browser core catches on, which unfortunately due to the license, I don't expect it will, it will likely be 5 million lines of code almost overnight.

My point is that you're deluded.

Yeh, no.

Three major events started "trade wars" and the government propaganda anti-China rhetoric.

1) 5G happened and Huawai was the only company with a full 5G implementation including millimeter wave and SA mode on release. Ericsson was 2-3 years behind. Nokia was 6. Huawei could deliver on day 1 and they cost much less because neither Sweden or Finland are ... well, they are terrible at competing. They simply expected China wouldn't be in the competition because... Why would they be. So, they were confused because they never had to actually compete against a company who actually did a good job.

Keep in mind, by now, nearly $2 trillion has been spent building 5G networks. Money to Sweden and Nokia recirculates. To China, it's horded and weakens the US.

2) Apple evaluated CXMT as RAM suppliers and YMTC and certified them as good enough for Apple to trust in their products and with their reputation. The US slammed the door shut on that. They are still making up excuses for why as there were no legitimate ones except that if those two companies get a foothold, the entire world semiconductor commodity trading market would collapse. As a result, non-Chinese companies can't legally license their tech to CXMT or YMTC so those companies operate patent free. But other companies have to pay license for their tech. This allows CXMT and YMTC to sell RAM and Flash for half the price. If the US lifts sanctions, in 3 years or less, Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron could be considering bankruptcy of their RAM divisions and CXMT could aggressively dump RAM to collapse the value of the patents.

3) China focused on brands. Before Chinese brands happened, buying expensive Chinese products was a high risk, Huawei, Xiaomi and others started legitimizing Chinese premium brands. This made it so buying an $80k Chinese car was ok because it wasn't cheap Chinese no name crap.

The money floods to China and they invest in One China by spending obsessively on education and R&D. They raised 800 million people out of poverty so far. They know every yuan spent in China is worth it. They invest massively in Silk Road because they don't think 4 years at a time. Building infrastructure across Asia, South America and Africa will pay them back massively.

The one thing which will cause China's greatest growth will be when they start opening Chinese universities to the masses. It will be way bigger than any other Silk Road initiative. And it will devastate the US economy. The US cannot afford to lose access to the world's top talent and can't afford to lose control of who gets an education and who doesn't.

Did you know that China's defense against American anti-Chinese propaganda is simple pro-China marketing? Which do you think is working better long term globally?

There are people who see what's happening and prepares for the changes. There are fools who make idiotic comments like yours.

We use Hubspot. Here's what we use it for:

- the "live chat with support person" bubble on our web application
- single funnel for incoming/outgoing support tickets & support communications with our customers

Adopting it was an old decision.

We would love to not use hubspot; the service delivered vs. the ongoing costs seem like a bad deal now.

At some point, we'll get around to migrating to something else.

Err... definitely not "regional slang." Literally the dictionary definition of the word "hatch" i.e. "to emerge from an egg."

I literally do.

There are 8 million Danes.

That nightmare scenario actually did play out not long ago near me. A woman from out of state was falsely ID'd by an AI camera of some kind and was detained for months and it wrecked her life.

My sentiment is that the process was wrong and that the officers and other parties involved in this should all be fired, and the woman compensated.

None of that is what normally happens; that is not happening "millions of times". That's why it was newsworthy when it _did_ happen.

The original comment was philosophically open ended.

I made the example in my response very specific because arguing about hypothetical generalities is usually not productive.

The difference is this: it's difficult to ascertain if someone is guilty or innocent without arresting them. YOu don't arrest people via a random statistical sampling; you arrest via a biased selector: You arrest people you have high odds of beleiving are likely to be guilty. And you arrest them because you cannot ascertain their guilt via non-destructive observation. Without arresting them, they are allowed to simply walk away while you are trying to ascertain their status.

An arrest rate of 10% of all humans would be ridiculous.

A false positive rate of 10% _among the population of people you arrest_ is acceptable.

So the applicable comparison isn't "your cell phone doesn't work 10% of the time", the applicable comparison is "when your cell phone wasn't working, the tech support team guessed correctly as to the root cause 90% of the time, but guessed incorrectly 10% of the time"

IOW, 90% success rate with a 10% FP rate amongst a problematic cohort.

>No I maintain it would be pathetic performance by LEO if they were willy nilly arresting people hoping to bag the perp.

Nobody is advocating for that.

The cops should only be arresting people they have a plausible reason to arrest. If it turns out that 10% of the time their guess was incorrect, that's acceptable. They are not performing random arrests and getting a lot hit rate. They are doing targeted arrests and getting an ultra high hit rate.

>AI is being forced inappropriately into peoples lives with no opt out *everywhere*

I agree with you, and I also don't like that, and I think stopping that via market choices and legislation, as appropriate, is the right thing to do.

In my mind that's totally separate from what I am talking about and commenting on.

That said, you can make legislation so that you're not forced to use it (or be spied on by it), but you cannot make a law that stops AI development. If nothing else, the law won't reach beyond our borders. And eventually a nation hostile to you will develop ASI and then they will impose it on you (and worse)

I've been a professional software engineer for 30 years.

AI has changed everything for software engineers.

I wrote a line of code by hand saturday (client blocks AI) and it was weird. I hadn't done it in months.

I don't have a crystal ball. I cannot say for sure whats coming.

But I would say this: if the scope of your ambition is small, e.g. the possible amount of value you can add as a business (or as an employee) is fundamentally constrained by something, then having a machine do that thing way more efficiently than you is a problem.

Machines will take an increasing share of your fixed pie.

Lots of software isn't that.

Lots of software is trying to make the pie bigger.

We're doing things now that we never would have tried. The incremental cost of writing code goes to zero. Software engineering changes. What assumptions about what you do and how you spend your time and what value you provide change when the cost of writing code goes down 10x or 100x?

For all of human history, the speed of acheiving every goal has been limited by available high-IQ-hours. At every moment in human history, there was unimaginable value not being created because it didn't make the cut compared to everything else that also needed doing - the brains capable of doing it didn't have the remaining hours to do it.

Artificial intelligence is changing the math on that. Unbounded level of available hours at what appears to unbounded level of IQ.

You are trapped in a prison made of your own lack of imagination.

(I'm not saying I'm not, by the way)

So, welcome to (checks notes) 1967, I guess?

I don't understand your point. Can you explain it for me?

I assume you have never tried making an AI model of the type we're discussing (near-frontier LLM), and you have also never tried making a printing press.

Neither have I.

However, knowing a bit about how LLMs work, and knowing a bit about model training for non-LLM models, and having done a bit of word working and metal work, I assume it's actually easier now to make an AI model at home than it is to make a printing press at home.