I don't think it's the AI specifically, but the fact that they've used AI to let go of competent (and expensive) people.

I'm using AI as a coding assist and code reviewer myself. It is impressive how often it is spot on, but it is also impressive with how much conviction it tells you one thing, then after you correct it it admits that that was totally bonkers. AI or not, you need someone in the loop with a deep understanding of what it actually is you are trying to accomplish.

I can fully imagine an AI without guidance to go off the rails more and more over time. But I can imagine the same thing for a room full of junior programmers.

I am honestly surprised how long it took them to ruin it. I moved my projects off github years ago, expecting it to fail much sooner.

Leading question.

Would you want to spend your entire life in a small cell all by yourself? Because then your wallet definitely won't get stolen.

Yes, life is not risk-free. But we have done a great job at making it several orders of magnitude less risky without mass surveillance, and it is doubtful if turning a free society into a police state would do all that much on top of that.

Every time you sit in your car, you risk injury, permanent disfigurement or disability and death - because all of these happen every day as the result of traffic accidents. And yet, without even being consciously aware of it, you hope every day that today it's not you.
You seriously want to tell me that that's a risk you are willing to take, but having your car keys stolen justifies mass surveillance?

Absolutely not, no.

I have some on my private property, because you don't have an expectation of privacy when trespassing on private property. But in public, we all should not feel under constant surveillance. There's a reason why China et al love total surveillance of the population so much.

Unless they acquired your explicit consent BEFORE the information gathering, the argument would still be the same.

Not at all.

But corruption and planned cost overruns and all kinds of "bid low then add costs later" tactics are working - for the politicians, the managers, the shareholders.

We absolutely do know how to run large projects and how to build large infrastructure. It's just that applying that knowledge is less profitable than fucking over taxpayers.

Easy solution:

If there is an accident at a nuclear plant, and even a hint of management being responsible, then management must join the crews doing the clean-up work, and they must be at the very frontlines.

I'm pretty sure that adding radiation poisoning to the equation changes the importance of quarterly results somewhat.

You are right, I didn't know or didn't remember those.

Right. You are applying legalese word precision assumptions to throwaway online comments. I don't think that's going to work well.

No, the one that answered:

"You know what he means, ahole. If this were truly a problem the jet fuel would be rationed and private aircraft would be at the bottom of the priority list"

The entire point of rationing would be to REMOVE the pure market forces that would deal out the limited commodity to those with the largest wallets and replace it with a scheme that benefits the most people, instead of the most money.

If you actually knew better, you'd have posted it, not just made a vague assertion.

Yes, and the only ships running on nuclear reactors are military ships. As I said: No civilian use-case.

This is one AC that deserves to be modded up. I already commented, so I can't.

You are aware of what happened Oct 7, 2023, right?

Actually, islamic fundamentalists qualify for that statement in absolutely every way. So at the absolute minimum you'll have to concede that there are two fascist sides.

For sufficiently gracious definitions of "working". Iran was quite busy building up conventional weapons including delivery systems that could be re-purposed for nukes as well as moving towards nuclear weapons. There is no civilian use for 60% enriched uranium. Moreover, the number "60%" is misleading. The work to enrich isn't linear. When you have 60%, you're not 60% of the way from raw to weapons-grade, you're 95% of the way.

To put into context just how insane any claim that they had 60% for any peaceful purposes is: Most nuclear reactors use uranium enriched to 3% to 5%. 60% isn't "a bit more than usual". It's a fuckton more than any non-weapons use can reasonably explain.

Iran didn't need a reason. We all know the reason they already had: Wiping out Israel.