I'm genuinely curious, while you make a good underlying point for which there is plenty of data to back it, why on why would you pick an example profession that has such an insanely low sample size, and a profession known for its mortality too. Seriously dude, we have huge aggregated datasets showing how average across the population there are improvements. WTF would you use an example subset of 45 people to make your case.

Cars aren't using machine learning. Learning is done elsewhere and a model is applied to the car. That model is equal across all cars where it's applied, no different from any other algorithm. Fix a problem in that model and you fix it equally in all cars.

It's still a correctable behaviour. Human behaviour is not correctable. The biggest improvements we have made in road safety is through systems that take away the requirement for human skill.

Skilled working visa schemes like H1-B are not about attracting world-class experts in anything. They are about attracting skills in specific areas where there may be shortages. The idea of raising the wage limit is a good one, but the reality is H1-B can be any speciality requiring a minimum of a masters degree. Heck there's even a cave out for fashion models to get H1-B visas.

This one will serve only to drive talent off shore. Imaging training people and then exporting that knowledge to another country by disincentivising working locally.

Yes because there are all those students who want to gut fish to put themselves through school.

Yes, but to be fair that's how things work in cutting edge world. AI LLMs in generic form are a bag of dicks, but on the flip side when we have alpha tested other products they've brought a world of benefits. The idea of testing cutting edge on employees isn't inherently bad, it just failed miserably with copilot.

I don't think so. I think it systemic of two things:
a) AI agents are actually not that good. They constantly make mistakes and hallucinate things. I've had Gemini provide citations that say the opposite of what Gemini summarised, I've had CoPilot screw up meeting summaries, I've had ChatGPT spit out absolute rubbish that didn't make sense.
b) Microsoft is desperate to rush this shit into the market unfinished. It's not just CoPilot. I've updates to Office 365 with active regressions that get fixed in future updates. Teams constantly changes, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the far worse (seriously why can't I stop streaming incoming video when I'm on a shitty connection anymore). I've uncovered serious bugs in Azure DevOps, it's just endemic to how Microsoft rolls out software these days.

It's a dual whammy of AI + crap supporting infrastructure. I don't think CoPilot is gimped on the onset, I just think it's not very good.

Precisely what did people get here? A security vulnerability automatically patched in the back end quickly with no evidence of exploit? It sounds like this was addressed faster than any windows server patch ever was, including past Active Directory.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, that we should all switch to the cloud because of how quickly the issue was addressed and how seriously Microsoft took the situation? I think you're trying to say something negative about a story that is actually a rather big success story for customers and Microsoft. Not the right platform for your rant.

Microsoft *SUCKS* at naming products. Not only new products, but confusing existing products. What the heck is Microsoft 365 by the way?

Precisely no 32bit games are being dropped as part of this announcement. I have no problem running my entire steam library on 64bit hardware. The Steam client itself won't support 32bit going forward, that's no the same thing as 32bit games losing support.

I dunno. China is a "market socialist" system -- which is a contradiction in terms. If China is socialist, then for practical purposes Norway and Sweden have to be even *more* socialist because they have a comprehensive public welfare system which China lacks. And those Nordic countries are rated quite high on global measures of political and personal freedom, and very low on corruption. In general they outperform the US on most of those measures, although the US is better on measures of business deregulation.

I think the opposite. I think this is an example of why human drivers will be easily surpassed by automated systems. When a problem is fixed by a vendor they can roll out a fix that fixes everyone. We've been trying to fix human behaviour for a century and have failed at doing so.

It makes no sense to claim Chinese courts have a lot of power, although it may seem that way â" itâ(TM)s supposed to seem that way. One of the foundational principles of Chinese jurisprudence is party supremacy. Every judge is supervised by a PLC â" party legal committee â" which oversees budgets, discipline and assignments in the judiciary. They consult with the judges in sensitive trials to ensure a politically acceptable outcome.

So it would be more accurate to characterize the courts as an instrument of party power rather than an independent power center.

From time to time Chinese court decisions become politically inconvenient, either through the supervisors in the PLC missing something or through changing circumstances. In those cases there is no formal process for the party to make the courts revisit the decision. Instead the normal procedure is for the inconvenient decision to quietly disappear from the legal databases, as if it never happened. When there is party supremacy, the party can simply rewrite judicial history to its current needs.

An independent judiciary seems like such a minor point; and frankly it is often an impediment to common sense. But without an independent judiciary you canâ(TM)t have rule of law, just rule by law.

Microsoft is just rolling their eyes and saying ok.. see you again in 3.5 years.

Hereâ(TM)s the problem with that scenario: court rulings donâ(TM)t mean much in a state ruled by one party. China has plenty of progressive looking laws that donâ(TM)t get enforced if it is inconvenient to the party. There are emission standards for trucks and cars that should help with their pollution problems, but there are no enforcement mechanisms and officials have no interest in creating any if it would interfere with their economic targets or their private interests.

China is a country of strict rules and lax enforcement, which suits authoritarian rulers very well. It means laws are flouted routinely by virtually everyone, which gives the party leverage. Displease the party, and they have plenty of material to punish you, under color of enforcing laws. It sounds so benign, at least theyâ(TM)re enforcing the law part of the time, right? Wrong. Laws selectively enforced donâ(TM)t serve any public purpose; theyâ(TM)re just instruments of personal power.

Americans often donâ(TM)t seem to understand the difference between rule of law and rule *by* law. Itâ(TM)s ironic because the American Revolution and constitution were historically important in establishing the practicality of rule of law, in which political leaders were not only expected to obey the laws themselves, but had a duty to enforce the law impartially regardless of their personal opinions or interests.

Rule *by* law isnâ(TM)t a Chinese innovation, it was the operating principle for every government before 1789. A government that rules *by* law is only as good as the men wielding power, and since power corrupts, itâ(TM)s never very good for long.

A lot of people in China do rent, I did, from people who have 'brought' a property and can then rent it. I looked seriously at 'buying' an apartment in China, but as you say it does feel a lot like renting and therefore felt like a bad investment.

My sense from living in China is not that people trust their government or they have been indoctrinated. They simple live in a situation where many things are out of their control and make the most of what they can control. Basically they know they are being short changed and are simply pragmatic about the situation.

While I can't completely agree about landlords I understand where you are coming from. Renting makes sense when you are young and starting out or only living in an area temporary, but it is sad to see buying has become so unaffordable that renting is now the only choice for many, driven in a large part by the large profits to be made from landlords with a large property portfolio. I have seen our government (New Zealand) try to address it by trying to make owning many properties hard to finance, but only with modest success. No quick fixes for that problem, but still not one to ignore.