Now I hear you, but just think about what happened in the food industry when they found out customers would not pay higher prices, but would gladly eat shit if it came in the same box as their childhood reward foods.
To what are you alluding?
I suggest:
First offence: Have to watch CSPAN for 5 hours a day, for a week, without sleeping through it - evidence to be provided in court
Second offence: Have to sing Miley Cyrus songs and Baby Shark on TikTok - sober
Third offence: License to practice and all memberships of country clubs and golf courses revoked
If you can't figure out for yourself what's wrong with ordering large numbers of men to their deaths, then I won't be able to explain it to you.
The real reason we will never be able to "fix" the drought is because the American West is not in a drought right now.
Basically everyone who lives in the area or studies the climate or hydrology would tell you that you're insane.
The West's rapid aridification isn't being caused by a "once-in-a-century" weather event
More like a once-in-a-millennium event. Though I suspect it's going to be considerably more common going forward.
What we're dealing with in the West is not a drought because the current lack of rainfall isn't "abnormal" for a desert. Dry is the default setting. And you can't call it a "drought" because you wish deserts were wetter.
Deserts have some amount of normal precipitation, too. And when you get a lot less than normal, that's called a drought. Yes, even in a desert.
Repeat the 1200 number a few times more, you're not making yourself look stupid enough.
No one on the planet has reliable rainfall data for even last 120 years.
We do have pretty good data from tree rings. Unless you think the trees came from somewhere else?
Yes there is, it's hardware and driver version dependent. It's far more efficient to just do the compilation in the background than to keep a precompiled version for each game for each combination of hardware and driver, x2 once for Vulkan and once for DirectX for games which support both.
They could take that one step further: once your computer has compiled the appropriate shader for its particular combination of hardware/driver/etc, the game could upload that particular shader to a repository, so that the next install with the exact same combination of conditions could just download it instead of having to duplicate the work. I imagine there are a lot of people out there running functionally identical systems that would benefit.
I suppose they don't do that because they don't trust people not to repurpose the mechanism as a malware vector, or something.
U scared bro?
He's probably not scared enough. Anyone old enough to remember Vietnam knows how the song goes from here. "We must throw another batch of American men into the meat grinder, otherwise the lives of the previous batch will have been sacrificed in vain", and repeat ad infinitum.
The UK has reliable rainfall data from the 1860's (165 years), and less reliable records going back further. But compared with 1,200 years, you have the right magnitude.
They tried that with Apollo 13. And.... that actually did work, sorta.
Each time some nerd says "Let them censor I have a VPN" he forgets that the next step is to crackdown on VPNs. Technical defenses against political problems only give you a bit of time, but will eventually fail.
Even worse is when they compromise the VPN operators and then monitor your usage until you do something that makes them decide to crack down on you.
People erroneously think of VPNs as privacy protectors. They aren't, not unless you have very good reason to trust whoever is running the server. If you don't, then they're concentrators for likely subversive traffic and its origins.
So you have two political parties pushing candidates at you.
The solution to this is to join a party and get involved in the decisionmaking. It's a lot easier than you might think, and you can have a lot more influence that you might expect, precisely because not that many people do this.
This is one case where the sky daddy freaks could be useful to stop an extremely dangerously stupid move "forward." Because we live in this world, in this time, if this goes forward, it will 100% be used to extend the lives of the ultra-rich, while the rest of us remain fodder for their machinations.
Meh.
It would undoubtedly be very expensive at first, and therefore only available to the very wealth (probably not ultra-wealthy -- even without automation, caring for such a clone wouldn't be a full-time job, so call it maybe $30k/year -- within the reach of the upper middle class). But competition would drive automation, and we already have most of the techniques required, having developed them to deal with coma patients and the like, but at lower cost because this case would be dealing with a fundamentally healthy body. My guess based on some napkin math is that cost could be driven down as low as $10k per year. Maybe lower.
$10k per year is expensive, sure, but having an immunologically-perfect organ donor could absolutely be worth it for someone making as little as $200k per year.
If the cost could be driven down to $5k per year... then it's in the range where most middle-class Americans could afford it, even if it meant that they'd have to cut back a little somewhere else; maybe drive an older car rather than leasing a new one, or similar.
Turning to AIs for a ruling on who is human and who is not is an interesting inversion of the Turing test.
So, no, this cluster of patches doesn't tell us anything in particular beyond what we already knew: That emergency patches are relatively common.
Considering that Microsoft has been promising this exact same type of improvement since the release of XP Service Pack 3, the words spoken now are worthless platitudes provided to ensure the smoothness of the theft of your money. There is zero reality behind any of their promises.
I'm just talking about statistical patterns. I know little about Microsoft patches. I abandoned Windows in 2001, right around the time XP was released, and have never looked back.
The LLM and the compiler and the formatter will get the low-level details right.
Maybe in about 90% if you are lucky. That still leaves about 10% error rate which is way too much.
Not remotely similar to my experience. Granted I'm writing Rust, and the Rust compiler is *really* picky, so by the time the agent gets something that compiles it's a lot closer to correct than in other languages. Particularly if you know how to use the type system to enforce correctness.
Your job is to make sure the structure is correct and maintainable, and that the test suites cover all the bases,
Depends on the definition of "bases". Passing test suite does not show your program correct. And if your test suite is also AI generated then you are again at the problem whether the tests themselves are correct.
Yes, you have to know how to write tests. A few decades of experience helps a lot. I find I actually spend a lot more time focused on the details of APIs and data structures than the details of tests, though. Getting APIs or data structures wrong will cost you down the road.
Also, I suppose it helps a bit that my work is in cryptography (protocols, not algorithms). The great thing about crypto code is that if you get a single bit wrong, it doesn't work at all. If you screw up the business logic just a little bit, you get completely wrong answers. The terrible thing is that if you get a single bit wrong, it doesn't work at all and gives you no clue where your problem might be.
Of course that's just functional correctness. With cryptography, the really hard part is making sure that the implementation is actually secure. The AI can't help much with that. That requires lots of knowledge and lots of experience.
and then to scan the code for anomalies that make your antennas twitch,
Vibe error detection goes nicely with vibe programming. That being said, experienced programmers have a talent to detect errors. But detecting some errors here and there is far from full code review. Well, you can ask LLM to do it as well and many proposals it provides are good. Greg Kroah-Hartman estimates about 2/3 are good and the rest is marginally somewhat usable.
Deep experience is absolutely required. My antennas are quite good after 40 years.
then dig into those and start asking questions -- not of product managers and developers, usually, but of the LLM!
Nothing goes as nicely as discussing with LLM. The longer you are at it the more askew it goes.
You really have to know what questions to ask, and what answers not to accept. It also helps to know what kinds of errors the LLM makes. It never outright lies, but it will guess rather than look, so you have to know when and how to push it, and how to manage its context window. When stuff starts falling out of the context window the machine starts guessing, approximating, justifying. Sometimes this means you need to make it spawn a bunch of focused subagents each responsible for a small piece of the problem. There are a lot of techniques to learn to maximize the benefit and minimize the errors.
My point is that 25k LOC a month (god forbid a week) is a lot. It may look working on the outside but it is likely full of hopefully only small errors. Especially when you decide that you do not need to human-review all the LLM generated code. But if you consider e.g. lines of an XML file defining your UI (which you have drawn in some GUI designer) to be valid LOC then yeah. 25k is not a big deal. Not all LOCs are equal.
Yeah, I am definitely not doing UI work.
Ignorance is bliss. -- Thomas Gray Fortune updates the great quotes, #42: BLISS is ignorance.
