JimTheMan

The 'skin in the game' is I go to a competitor and use a different product.

Making the mRNA Covid Vaccinnes.It's truly incredible what the world can do, when it decides to focus on a singular goal.

I suppose the point I was making, was that the Engineers and Physicists and others, while working on the Manhattan project couldn't be doing other things.

And to develop those people takes years of education and training, and most people don't have the cognitive ability to do that kind of work. The pipeline to produce more of those workers, is skinny indeed.

Whereas now, we're limited by how many electrons we can put to work. The question then becomes, "Could our electricity be put to better use?"

The problem with point 2, is that person couldn't then work on other things. And there's a limited supply of people of that capability in the world.

We're now at stage where we can turn energy into thought to generate expertise on demand.

Could you just get a separate agent to do a pass over existing code and make conform? Like super linting.

Not a professional programmer, so it's a genuine question rather than a statement.

A person's intent leads to the quality of a final product.

They should care if it actually has errors.

They should care if it has claude-isms.

But it certaintly seems like they don't care, at this point in time, about those things.

I'll take your feedback on board. But I'm not calling them stupid, or a bad person. I'm saying their goals are not aligned with my idea of a finished product.

The worst part for me is, with a little effort, you can make a final product that doesn't use claude-isms and is 100% correct.

But the creator doesn't care because their goal isn't to make a tool people want to use. They make a minimum viable product, that looks super impressive but lacks that final polish and move on.

It infuriates me enough, that when I get the time I'm going to recreate the 'lighthouses of the world' example I saw the other day. Only I'm going to do it right...

I was going to say, in Australia you would be able to claim that as a work expense against your income, reducing your tax owed.

But it looks like in the US, you would need to be self employed or own a business where it is an expense. Which is a bummer.

Imperfection isn’t evidence of ineffectiveness.

Considering this has gone unflagged for 11 years... Finding a flaw in Rust’s safety guarantees doesn’t mean that they provide no benefit, over a programming language without them.

I mean, have you worked with the Chinese? They're not like that at all.

They love money so much, you could swear they're American!

This is a very long winded way of saying, "I don't care how it happened, tell me what you are going to do about it."

There's something about the way this is drafted that irks me. It reads like AI, but not floridly so. Mostly, it's the optimistic assumptions layered throughout. That management care about reasonableness, that the reasons it actually doesn't want the details is because it 'trusts' you.

No, more likely is that this leader didn't want you to spew minutae. "Keep it simple simon, I want results not a play by play."

I believe that to be a very obvious joke. The kind that the british are fond of.

As with everything, it depends how you use it.

I’ll often put a long stream of consciousness on the page, or jot down rough meeting minutes, then ask ChatGPT to “summarise this for an email”. The result is shorter, clearer and easier to read.

AI amplifies the habits of the person using it. If they’re lazy or dim, then it's like giving a monkey a gun.

I would make the argument that debt came first. Favours in between people, prior to the invention of currency.

This kind of move by Canada indicates that perhaps it believes the US to be unreliable and in decline?

A necessary move, because the US isnt acting like an ally anymore.

Hence the increased cooperation and agreements with the EU and China.