"away from densely populated areas" is both subjective and not the same as "away from other development".
This kind of article should wait until the study has been peer-reviewed, not flood the zone with unreviewed slop.
I understood the question to be whether the study controlled for other changes in land use in the surrounding area. For example, northern Virginia has built a ton of new data centers close together over the last decade -- in many cases, replacing pastures. Attributing the results of the whole set to individual data centers would be a methodological error.
They have working software: OCX is intended to replace the current ground system, Operational Control System (OCS). They have launched a lot more than 30 satellites -- in fact, most of them have been decommissioned, although the currently operational set have mostly outlived their design lifetimes by a lot. The oldest active satellites are Block IIR satellites, with a design life of 7.5 years
That doesn't at all answer the question that was asked.
Problem is micromanaging executives that are all in and demanding to see some volume of LLM usage the way they think is correct (little prompt, large amounts of code).
Thus practice may be very bad for your health. Not that these "executives" care, but you should.
Yes. And that is how AWS got their 13 hour (?) outage. That outage was probably more expensive than what they can save in cost over a year or several by using LLMs as surrogate coders.
Why stop there? Make it part of the start-up message and if there is none, add one!
Well, the routinely clueless economics graduates certainly think so. My take is that in a few years actually competent coders will be in high demand to fix the mess and out out a lot of fires. When that happens and if you are inclined to participate, make them pay through the nose.
Sounds like very risky behavior. But some people are simply not smart...
Will probably not take long.
I have no idea what graduates you look at, but this is not the case here (Europe).
The point being...AI doesn't tangibly save time. It might save a bit under some circumstances, but not enough to justify layoffs. The CEOs are full of shit.
Pretty much this. LLMs can be convenient, but they are not magic and that they make competent coders slower is pretty well established by now.
The problem with that is that external pressure to get better is raising, both from reliability requirements and from security requirements. In this case, stagnation means getting worse and worse.
Well, that is certainly what they are planning. Just one problem: The evidence is mounting that LLMs cannot replace competent engineers.
No surprise this idiocy is happening in other areas too. There is a special kind of mental disability you need to have (or acquire) to be an economics graduate: A total inability to see more than a few months into the future and a total inability to do any kind of risk management. It worked? Everything must be more than fine and surely we can do it cheaper, right?
That is why people with critical institutional and technological skills are not treated even remotely at their value, let alone critical for organizational survival. Tech history is full of big names that are not around anymore or only in massively reduced forms. And in most cases, it is because some "managers" did not manage to think.
"It ain't over until it's over." -- Casey Stengel
