Pretty much the whole industry assumes that AI-written code is owned by the company who employs the engineer who was using the AI. I don't think this has been litigated, but if it were to go the way you suggest it would create... problems.

Depends on whether they can review the code and tests effectively first. I frequently push commits without ever typing a line of code myself: Tell the LLM to write the test, and how to write it, check the test, tell the LLM how to tweak it if necessary, then tell the LLM to write the code and verify the test passes, check the code, tell the LLM what to fix, repeat until good, then tell the LLM to write the commit message (which I also review), then tell it to commit and push.

Actually "tell the LLM what to fix/tweak" is often not right. More often it's "Ask the LLM why it chose to do X". I find I program via the Socratic Method a lot these days. The LLM usually immediately recognizes what I'm getting at and fixes it -- most often not because the code was wrong but because the implementation was more complex than necessary, or duplicated code that should be factored out, or similar. Sometimes it provides a good explanation and I agree that the LLM got it right.

As an example from immediately before I started typing this comment, the LLM wrote some code that included a line like [[maybe_unused]] ignored = ptr->release(). The LLM had recognized that the linter was going to flag the unused return value (which it had named "ignored" to make clear to readers that ignoring it was intended) and inserted the annotation to suppress it. This was all unnecessarily complex, made necessary by the fact that it had previously used get() to get the raw pointer value before checking it and then (right after the release()) stuffing it into another smart pointer object to return. The release() call was necessary to keep the first smart pointer from deleting the pointed-at object. I typed "Why not move the pointer directly from release() to the new smart pointer?". The LLM said "Oh, that would be cleaner and then I could get rid of the temporaries entirely" and reorganized the code that way. That's a trivial code structure example, of course, but the pattern often holds with deeper bugs, including sometimes that my question makes the LLM realize that its whole approach (which is often what I suggested) was wrong and to go into planning mode to develop a correct strategy.

There are exceptions, of course. Sometimes the LLM seems to be incredibly obtuse and after a couple of prompts I click "stop" and type what I want, at least enough that I can then tell the LLM "See what I did? That's what I mean."

"Writing code" with AI assistance is mostly reviewing code and you can often do that on a small screen and without a keyboard.

A carbon consumption/emission fee that is rebated per capita (i.e. everyone gets the same payment) does exactly what is needed -- it helps people who can limit their carbon emissions below the national average, and it makes those emitting more than their fair share pay for the privilege.

Politically, this would be difficult but not impossible, especially if you front-loaded and gave people the payments first. Now they have the cash to pay the higher prices, unless they're emitting a lot of carbon. You would need price adjustments at the borders, to prevent foreign corporations in carbon-intensive tasks (I think steel and cement production would fit this) from emitting carbon dioxide"for free", and then exporting their products to the US (or whatever countries adopt this) at a lower price. And then there's the mess of accurately assessing how much carbon a particular process or company released.

Cite?

Corporations aren't the primary contributors, their customers are. Corps just supply what people want to buy.

The solution is simple and well-understood: Apply carbon taxes, then let the market work. It's just not politically feasible until we convince voters to care.

It's really not.

I'm all in favor of humanity becoming a multi-planetary species. I think it's a good goal and we should work toward it. But colonizing Mars is not a solution for climate change because living in Mars' climate is way, way harder than living in Earth's, even with extreme global warming. I suppose you could argue that learning how to live on Mars would prepare us for living on a hellscape Earth, but (a) it's not clear that we are capable of continuing our civilization under such conditions and (b) even if we can, it would be orders of magnitude more costly than simply fixing Earth's climate.

Colonizing Mars and then eventually turning the Mars colonies into a self-sufficient civilization is a good goal, and could be an important hedge against some other catastrophic risks (e.g. killer asteroids), but it's not a good solution for this problem.

Actually, I looked it up rather than going from memory: BTC difficulty updates don't happen every few months they happen every 2016 blocks, which is roughly every two weeks. And the process is entirely automated, adjusting the difficulty to maintain a new block rate of about one every 10 minutes. In fact, the "2016" number was chosen because it's the number of 10-minute intervals in two weeks. This is all part of Satoshi's original design.

The most recent adjustment happened on Feb 7, and it was a downward difficulty adjustment. This wasn't a new phenomenon; downward adjustments are much less common than upward adjustments, but they've happened many times in the past.

So, BTC adapts automatically to price changes that making mining more or less profitable.

Difficulty is updated every few months. This is a routine process. I'm not sure that it has ever been decreased rather than increased, but I don't think that will be a significant obstacle.

One thing the science does tell us is that we all have a very hard time separating the world that existed when we were children from our perception of that world through the eyes of a child.

Ask nearly any population in the United States when this country was best and you'll get a majority who'll swear to you it was when they were teenagers. The age of the group doesn't matter. You get the same result from 20 year olds as 40 year olds as 60 year olds as 80 year olds. And what you're seeing is people looking back to a time when they had lots of free time, lots of freedom, and most of their income was disposable and thinking "that was pretty great." And it was.... except they were living under a roof someone else paid for and still experiencing the risks and complexities of the world through the filter and safety net provided by their parents.

And since we're being scientific about this: yes, obviously not everyone. I'm sure someone reading this right now is thinking "I had a tough childhood." And I'm sure they did but anecdotes are not data.

The 1980s were -- and I say this as both a historian and someone who lived through them -- fucked. Reagan torched the New Deal consensus. The AIDS crisis was literally laughed out of the White House press room. Our government perpetuated a long string of dirty intelligence/foreign-policy interventions. The wealthy and powerful were juiced to the gills on cocaine.

There was a sense of decorum which has sense evaporated from American politics but that's about it.

Too bad you didn't set it up the day before. You could have restored the snapshot and brought him back.

Apparently the math doesn't work out on that. Most likely, they expect to have enough ad-viewing users for training.

It's spelled Doxygen, but I don't think Linux uses it.

https://livingwage.mit.edu/met...

Typical annual salary, according to MIT's Living Wage Calculator for the NYC Metro, is $84,860.

Poverty wage is $7.52/hr (no kids) and minimum wage is $15.50 which, according to the calculator, should cover 1 adult with 3 kids.

The Brearley School, regarded as the best private school for girls in the nation and charging around $70K, is a non-profit.

What shareholders?

A little bit of it will