The point is that people are investing vast sums of money to create elaborately-packaged boxed sets that are simply too vast to be actually enjoyed (apparently, the new boxed set Thunderbirds will include heavily restored footage that simply wasn't capable of being included in earlier releases), and upscaling a puppet show to 4K and still have it watchable is far from trivial -- those puppets were never made to be seen on such large screens at such high resolution. The scale of investment into making this publicity stunt and boxed set is incredible, the cost of the set isn't low, and the value of the material that's in the set - even to die-hard fans - isn't nearly as great.

Goblin/Guardian: The Lonely and Great God is an even more extreme example and includes 270 minutes of backstage footage, a large pack of publicity photos, scripts, and a tacky plastic sword. It's an extremely limited edition special collector's edition and the resale market is pricing it as though it includes a couple of solid gold ingots. People will certainly binge-watch the episodes once or twice, which will undoubtedly be in much higher resolution than the rare streamed versions, but not even the afficados will be watching all the making-of footage and the scripts will doubtless be on the Internet somewhere. Unlike high-end sci-fi, though, the storyline is simple so the difference between the scripts and fan-produced transcripts won't be vast. (It was a very good storyline, I was impressed, but it was hardly a case where the tiny nuances matter.) But K-Drama is milled in unimaginable quantities, so much so that many series just can't pick up any kind of audience and are abandoned. It's not produced for repeated watching and the odds of any show, however good, being repeatedly watched (the way fans repeatedly watch LoTR or SW) is essentially zero. But someone had to trawl through all the footage to put together the set, make the booklets, etc, and that wasn't cheap. The boxing is elaborate.

The importance of storytelling is high, but none of these are sophisticated stories. They're all pretty much on-par with Smith of Wooton Major - a great little read, but not one I'd pay £500 for, even if they did throw in a plastic sword. I'm not convinced anyone is buying these sets for the content, even though the content is enjoyable.

The degree of investment is phenomenal, the sophistication of presentation is exceptional, and the fans are buying in quantity. I'm just not sure what the benefit is, on either side.

You just bled tons of users over Jimmy Kimmel. Now you announce this *THE DAY JIMMY IS REINSTATED*?

That'll make some users just decide to stay off.

Seriously terrible timing. They should have waited at *LEAST* a month, to give the "Jimmy quitters" time to rejoin.

I currently work hybrid. It reduces my effective pay by around 10%, which is a hell of a cut. It gains me nothing, since all meetings - even when we're all in the same room - are via teams, because company policy.

I see no added value from visiting the office.

Ish.

I would not trust C++ for safety-critical work as MISRA can only limit features, it can't add support for contracts.

There have been other dialects of C++ - Aspect-Oriented C++ and Feature-Oriented C++ being the two that I monitored closely. You can't really do either by using subsetting, regardless of mechanism.

IMHO, it might be easier to reverse the problem. Instead of having specific subsets for specific tasks, where you drill down to the subset you want, have specific subsets for specific mechanisms where you build up to the feature set you need.

Oh, absolutely. These days, I spend so much time checking the output from computers, it would normally have been quicker to do searches by hand. This is... not useful.

I can fully understand that.

The big thing for me is that AI doesn't "write the code I put in production" - it provides guidance on techniques to use, or solves bugs I have written.

The same as StackOverflow for me. Just more personalized to my exact situation.

"I'm writing a shell script to ssh into a remote system and run some commands, I have to use some environment variables defined locally on the system I'm executing the script on, and other environment variables that are defined on the remote system I'm connecting to, and I can't remember how to escape things properly to pass through correctly." I can just feed an LLM my exact command that isn't working right, and ask it to rewrite it. It takes 2-3 further prompts ("That produced this error message, please try again") but it generally bug fixes it.

Or "I need a python script to integrate this company's API, as documented on this url with this other thing, and do this task, what would be a good sample?" I don't take it exactly as it spits it out, but use it as a basis for my own code.

I would say that in the last four years of using LLMs to assist, maybe 10% of my actual deployed code is "directly from an LLM, because it produced clearly functional code" - usually only short snippets. One short function in a Python script, for example. Maybe another 20% was "came from an LLM prompt, then heavily rewritten, because I didn't want to feed potentially proprietary data into the LLM."

They exist now. They're either small toys, or large horrendously expensive limited-purpose things.

The problem is that they're pointless. Anything a humanoid robot can do in an automated manner, a specialized non-humanoid robot could do much cheaper.

I don't need Rosie the Robot to use my regular stand-up vacuum cleaner. I have a Roomba.

I don't need a humanoid robot to sit in the driver's seat of a car to drive me around, Waymo exists.

I don't need a humanoid robot to stand in a factory using a spray can to paint a car, automated industrial robots that can do tasks like that (or welding) have existed for decades.

Chevy built one. In 2010. It was called the Volt.

Chrysler builds one. The Pacifica PHEV.

Heck, even BMW built one - the i3.

I do very much understand what you're saying and it certainly adds to the complexity. One cannot put sociological or psychological factors on a box.

That aspect of the problem is indeed going to be much harder to deal with than, say, salt, trans fats, or known carcinogenic compounds.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you can do about those aspects - financial incentives help a little, but honestly I don't believe they make a huge difference - which is why I've concentrated on unsafe levels of ingredients, because although we don't know exactly what those should be, we've at least got a rough idea for some of them. It's going to be a delicate one, though -- you don't want to overly restrict sources of sugar because diabetics can suffer from crashes due to excessively low sugar just as badly as excessively high levels, and some items get unfairly maligned (chocolate, per se, isn't bad for you, it's the additives, and indeed particularly high percentage chocolate can be helpful for the heart).

But, yes, I absolutely agree with your overarching point that the problems are primarily psychological and sociological. I just don't have the faintest idea of how these can be tackled. Jamie Oliver tried (albeit not very well, but he did at least try) and the pushback was borderline nuclear, and that was where there was clear and compelling evidence of significant difference in health and functionality. If you can barely escape with your life for saying eating better reduces sickness and improve concentration, and pushing for changes where these two factors essentially dictate whether a person is functional in life, then I don't hold out hope for change where it's more ambiguous or the economics are much tougher.

There are papers arguing that smoothies aren't as good as eating real fruit because it seems that there's actually a benefit to having to break down cell walls, even at the expense of not getting 100% of the nutrients from it. However, cooking food breaks down cell walls, although obviously not to the same degree. It's not clear that breaking down cell walls is harmful, even if it's not beneficial.

A lot of ultra-processed foods have been accused of having unhealthy levels of certain ingredients (usually sugars or salt) and certain styles of cooking can add harmful compounds.

It would seem reasonable to say that there's a band at which a given ingredient is beneficial (analogous to a therapeutic threshold), with levels above that being increasingly harmful, eventually reaching a recognised toxic threshold. In terms of the harmful compounds from cooking, it seems reasonable to suggest that, below a certain level, the body's mechanisms can handle them without any issue, that it's only above that that there's any kind of problem.

So it would seem that we've got three factors - processing that can decrease benefits, ingredients that follow a curve that reaches a maximum before plunging, and processing that can increase harm.

Nobody wants to be given a complicated code that they need to look up, but it would seem reasonable that you can give a food a score out of three, where it would get 3 if you get maximum benefit and no harm, where you then subtract for reduced benefit and increased harm. That shouldn't be too hard for consumers, most people can count to 3.

Yeah, understood, food is going to vary, since it's all uncontrolled ingredients and processing itself is very uncontrolled. So take two or three examples as a fair "representative sample". Further, most manufacturers can't afford to do the kind of testing needed, and our understanding of harm varies with time. No problem. Give a guidebook, updated maybe once every couple of years, on how to estimate a value, which can be used, but require them to use a measured value if measured, where the value is marked E or M depending on whether it's estimated or measured.

It's not perfect, it's arguably not terribly precise (since there's no way to indicate how much a food item is going to vary), and it's certainly not an indication of any "absolute truth" (as we don't know how beneficial or harmful quite a few things are, food science is horribly inexact), but it has to be better than the current system because - quite honestly - it would be hard to be worse than the current system.

But it's simple enough to be understandable and should be much less prone to really bizarre outcomes.

My Toyota Prius, at 300,000 miles, only got ~250 miles on a tank of gas.

Did I pay to get it fixed? No. Because it was still perfectly usable. Just as a Hyundai Ioniq 6 that gets ~50% of its original range at 300,000 miles would still be perfectly usable.

And ultra-high-mile older EVs are getting better than 70% at 200k miles.

"Less maintenance but more expensive to maintain"?

o.O

In a decade of EV ownership of multiple models by multiple manufacturers, I've never had to perform a battery replacement. I've never had to perform any "regularly scheduled maintenance" other than tire rotations. I've had a couple fluid changes on a couple vehicles, both were about the price of an oil change at a high-end carmaker's dealer. I haven't had to replace the brake pads on any, including multiple that went over 100,000 miles by the time I sold them. The only tires I've replaced were winter tires that are notoriously short lifespan, or tires that had physical damage from road debris.

Yes, maintenance on expensive brands is expensive. An oil change at a BMW dealership costs more than an oil change at a Toyota dealership. Parts for a Mercedes cost more than parts for a Ford.

Parts for a Tesla cost more than parts for a Hyundai EV. "Regular maintenance visits" for a Rivian cost more than regular maintenance visits for a Chevy Bolt.

They're *LESS* expensive to maintain, not more. And as for insuring? A Hyundai Kona EV costs the same to insure as an ICE Hyundai Kona, assuming both have the same MSRP. Yes, a Tesla costs more to insure than a Honda Civic. But so does a BMW 3-series.