Also reminds me of the release of Careless People last year (the one where Facebook got a gag order on the author so she can't talk about her own book)... it seemed you couldn't talk about the company's complicity in, for instance, the Malaysian genocide without someone trying to paint the author as morally compromised by association.

Yeah, it's a pretty eye-watering account. And most likely it will kill internet competition, because the big guys will figure out all the exceptions and technical hacks to minimize the tax bill.

There's a more optimistic outcome: they rewrite preserving bug-for-bug compatiblity, but all the bugs get flagged. And then they can start remediating those, carefully considering the impacts on compatability. Along the way, perhaps they pick up other wins on performance, dead/duplicate code elimination, compilation speed, and/or test coverage. And perhaps they stir up new ideas or find they can reallocate talent or reduce personnel. It's a gamble to be sure, but it's what investors want to see right now.

in addition to what you listed, there's also issue with ownership. you don't own something because a blockchain says you do. you own shares because there's a record of YOU in the company records (they know who to send dividends to, and who to gather votes from to elect the board). most folks own shares in street-name, so the company sees Fidelity (or whoever is your broker) as the "owner"... fidelity passes on dividends, and makes you do proxy voting.

In this case, you're just swapping a regulated broker (like Fidelity, or even Robinhood) for some unknown "broker" who will actually be the "owner", and you really can't do anything outside of that "broker" anyway, with blockchain or not. it's still centralized at that broker level... who will probably get the voting rights (and perhaps dividends?) without the actual risk of paying for the shares Hmm.. I wonder if that's part of the scam (e.g. tokenized shares don't get voting rights, since they're not really "owners"---not sure about dividends----who would the company send the check to?).

> You cannot sit down and ask an AI to write you anything long and complex and expect it to do so successfully without ... ... a lot of debugging. With practice, it can do long and complex and succcessful, and do so in less time than it would take to write it yourself.

It will still take a *lot* of debugging. It will be at least an order of magnitude longer than the time it took to write it, and the last 10% of production ready will take 90% of your time. But, it can still be significantly faster than writing it yourself.

Is that the motivation for all the AI slop hitting open source projects? People trying to pick up cheap credibility and resume points? I'm really curious why it's such a problem...

I've had a long professional development career, and the 2026 frontier models do most coding and debugging work far faster and better than me. I wish like hell that LLMs could be un-invented, but to be an effective person, one must deal with reality.

All the trust and verification issues you mention are issues with human developers as well. Even "accountability" for software faults doesn't really stick to individual developers unless it's egregious and frequent... bugs are expected. The only real differences on the software quality front are scale: the LLM can write more code more quickly, but it can also review and test more coffee more quickly.

I do agree that many orgs will fall into the trap of writing unmaintainable software simply because they don't balance that increase in scale. The great improvement is that when these systems collapse under their own weight or sing technology, the pros will be able to rewrite them much faster.

Does anyone actually use these browsers or is it just a ploy to soak up VC dollars?

Yeah, my Musk sycophant friend says the same whenever I express skepticism about Elon's endeavors or character. Which is funny since I rarely read Electik and my arguments aren't from there.

If you climb a mountain and see the sunrise from the summit, you feel like a champ. Because you've done something hard. Now what if the park service builds a road up the other side and you finish your climb only to find the top crowded with tourist buses? Well now you feel like a chump... a superior chump maybe, but the sense of satisfaction you got from summiting will be gone.

That's all really complicated... just confiscate their toys and bar them from using smartphones and social media for one year. Maybe throw in a few hours of community service.

Done. Problem solved. They'll grow up to be well-adjusted, or at least well-adjusted enough not to robo-rape girls.

Musk is a brand, which like any brand needs periodic marketing to maintain mindshare and relevancy. The value of his companies' shares hinges on fanbois' belief in the brand ~ e.g., the perception that Musk is building a sci-fi future. Musk knows he must do stunts like this periodically to stoke the faithful.

This piece of shit will generate SO MANY LAWSUITS.

I suspect it will use your own words against you :-)

Exactly. The real story is that an-app that manages "a few dozen games" takes *seconds* to load on modern hardware. Seriously---the computer can do billions of operations per second per core, has at least a dozen cores, gigabytes of ram, SSDs that can pull at least a gig of data in a second... ...and it takes them *seconds* to load?

Why isn't this instantaneous, or rather, faster than a blink of an eye? It should take longer to lift the finger from clicking the mouse than for this "manager of a dozen games" to load.