Famous last words. "Proven because it is old" is a much weaker argument than "Proven because the compiler validates every individual unit." Period. Not to mention, we keep seeing this argument fall apart, especially when the "old code" egos prevail even when they obviously shouldn't have.

https://openprinting.github.io...

Common sense should tell you that old code is not proven simply because nobody has exploited it. But here you are, making that argument. You have implementations confused with specifications. Specifications tend to age better than implementations do.

Mark Twain once quipped:

Tremendous, now, after spending billions of dollars, CA finally has a power grid that can stay online year-round without forced "rolling blackouts".

We're all very proud of you finally building a grid that can handle your needs.

Exactly. It's a field they are told to fill in, but don't care.

Don't be so stupid. Don't confuse what officers put in an unrequited field on a form with actual, legal reason.

The field, based on the summery was not required to be filled-in since many users left the field blank and still their search happened.

No one is contending that the "reason" an officer performed a search was because "haha", the officer (obviously) didn't care to type anything meaningful in the (unrequired) field. If your complaint is that nonsense was entered into an unrequired, unverified field on a form, it's a very weak argument/small problem.

Anecdotally, I've had pretty solid results with gemini and grok not hallucinating when it comes to the law. Unlike these lawyers, I ask the LLMs to provide direct links to the legal code and/or case briefs, and they're usually pretty spot on, usually only disagreeing with one another in subtle ways that, in my non-lawyer mind, seem to be the kind of thing that could go either way. After all, the reason you end up in court to begin with is to have the court interpret exactly these kinds of disagreements that two parties might have on the precise meaning of the law.

ChatGPT, on the other hand, is just...bad. Just as with two years ago when it was all the rage, it still likes to speak in absolute terms (projecting high confidence) and link to shit that doesn't fucking exist. They've come up with many new model revisions, but it still has the same basic problems it has always had.

NYC only has so many taxis, and the easiest place to pickup rides and keep busy is to operate in Manhattan, not in the Bronx or Queens...

A city may or may not have actual, high-value medallions, but I bet most cities of any significant size has a taxi commission and a means to keep private citizens from starting their own personal taxi service/ride share company...

Typo, should read:

My point was, simply, if the costs get too high, there's nothing keeping them in CA. They don't have employees, they don't own cars, they don't have maint. Facilities, etc - they just have an agreement to skim a certain amount of money off the top of every drive. If the amount they skim gets too low, "the juice might not be worth the squeeze"...

Ride share companies can stop operating in a city, state, etc for any period of time, from hours to days, with nothing more than a simple programming change.

It is possible for CA to regulate the ride shares out of the state - and if that happens, that leaves a whole lot of "gig workers" scrambling to find work. I'm not saying it's likely, I'm saying there's very little keeping them there if the regulations get to onerous.

Two days in a row, my full Powerwalls became part of the virtual power station. We did have an outage, because of a branch or something on our rural road. Otherwise, disaster averted. Hurray for batteries.

Yep.

Unions like SEIU pull this carp all the time. And the politicians they contribute to help them do it.

In Michigan, for example, they "organized" home care "workers" ... who are overwhelmingly just relatives of disabled people. (The state saves a bundle by providing some funds to pay family members for taking care of their own disabled family members.)

How did SEIU do that, you ask, when state law says that the "employer" in this program is the disabled person himself? Why, they got the state Dems to change the law, so that solely for the purpose of collective bargaining, the "employer" is the state! Easy peasy.

For no other purpose though - they "cared" so deeply for these "workers" that they sure as heck were not going to make them true state employees, lol.

Most of the relatives of disabled people were like "WTH is this?" and threw the "organizing" ballots in the trash. So SEIU "won" the "election" to "organize" the "workers". (creating a worldwide shortage of scare quotes in the process)

Utter bottom feeding scum.

You lack imagination - the drivers have no leverage - Lyft, Uber, etc can choose to leave a state and make it happen within a few hours, and, as the drivers aren't really full-time employees of the ride share companies they 'gig' for, they really have no advance warning protection that I can see.

If drivers demand excessive compensation and ride share companies can't make a profit, the companies will just close up shop.

What will stop them?

He'll run. The political consultants are salivating at the donations this guy can attract, and the consultants are paid a percentage of the as buys they make on behalf of a campaign.

There is absolutely no way Newsom won't be in the 2028 Primaries. He may not make it to the General election, but there's no way he'll sit out the election - just ask yourself why he's traveling to all these random states for the mid-terms?

Taxis were artificially constrained to keep taxi medallions expensive.

Ride share has a dynamic model that can (virtually) bring on as many drivers as needed, then reduce availability to keep rates high.