Sure. So?

No, it is not. It is around $300 for Samsung. Maybe do not believe the sensationalist headlines.

You can delete the modules or move them some place else. What the kernel does not find, it does not load.

I looked at a waterfall project where the mayor ended up spending $3M to have an audit done on the current state of a project that was way behind on time and way over budget, only for them to come back and say that it'd be cheaper to burn all the effort to date and start fresh.

The SSD would cost $10 but only the commissars would be able to buy them because they would always be out of stock everywhere else.

Obviously. But never underestimate the incompetence of stupid people that on top lack a technological education when they think they can do tech and who needs engineers anyways. The Darvin Awards, for example, document quite a few impressive respective fails.

They are not going to get AGI. We are _very_ far removed from that and we reliably know LLMs cannot do it. The LLM industry will collapse catastrophically, there is no other way this can go. The only question is when.

A current 2TB Samsung SSD is more around $300.

The extreme observed price for a specific old model comes from old hardware sometimes being more expensive because some people need that specific model as a replacement part. Looks like somebody did not do their homework.

Yep. And that is because old, out of manufacture hardware sometimes gets expensive. A current Samsung 2TB is more like $300.

What a fail on your part.

Why do you assume I have not looked at the literature? Pure arrogance on your side.

As to your "spotting" claim, yep, tell yourself that. Not true in he least, but if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, what the hell. What I can spot is nonsense. That seems to be a skill in really short supply among philosophers. It is a core skill among STEM people. I do know that some philosophers have actually working minds, for example from the respective lecture I took. But a philosopher teaching at a technical University has learned that words to do not impress but meaning may do so.

Reminds me of an exchange with a philosopher I had where he complained about the arrogance of mathematicians to claim "1+1" was "2". The guy did not even know the very basics! Since I have studied some set theory and logic, I of course know that "2" is a syntactic (!) abbreviation. The idea that yes, mathematicians had thought this through was too much for his brain.

As to the citation you have, it is completely empty and has no meaning. It is simply a claim with no support at all, not even any attempt at an actual argument. There is nothing in there. You should also probably look up "fallacy" and "argument from authority". Please do not assume that using big words and convoluted language does impress everybody.

Indeed, same as general survival. Getting-rich-quick is far more important. Tomorrow? Who cares!

There is a LOT of conditionals in your statement. You may want to revise it.

Which is also why "AI" coding assistants are worth far less than generally claimed.

Non-coders with crappy tools produce insecure code. News at 11:00....

Seriously, what the hell? Are people really this dumb? Well, I guess they are.

I'm sure they're vibe coding as fast as they can!