NegativeK

Shouldn't that be in the commit history and documentation?

I feel like that's a pretty standard expectation, even though we all know that the commit history can be 50% "fix bug -> fix bug try 2" and good documentation is often missing.

How are you validating the accuracy?

I'm not trying to be anti-AI snide. Having it write tests, having judge agents, reviewing every PR? I'm legit curious.

> At what cost? Some. At some cost.

This doesn't address how the cost of safety related procedures versus the cost of risks mitigated is calculated (which is way harder than saying "some") so that the buyer can actually know what "some" cost is.

It's also not addressing the parent comment's point: the bad outcomes in aviation tend to be very impactful (both in human safety and financially), so the tolerance for mistakes is way lower.

Compared to cybersecurity for a brochureware website, where it takes a far larger stretch to go from "security incident" to "someone's dead". (Also, people in cybersecurity aren't going to accept "it has some cost, and you might buy it if it's not too expensive".)

That's my horror/worry. The 2008 was started by the collapse of the real estate market. Banking collapsed because they were absurdly overleveraged.

Are the banks currently being stress tested? Is the testing honest?

Is anyone evaluating the potential impact to the other funds? Or are people being sidelined if they're not on the bandwagon, given that the non-AI market is in overall decline? Are pensioners _not_ going to receive help if an AI collapse tanks their retirement, despite them having basically zero control over the investment?

Mcmaster also isn't (somewhat famously) competing on price. They won't rip you off, but you can't sort by price. There are no sales. With limited exception, they won't list brands on the site. (But if you contact them, they'll gladly tell you who so you can buy direct.)

Their target market is people who need to fix something quickly or get some industrial supply item tomorrow so work isn't stopped.

Massive corporations save money via the end user by taking a chainsaw to customer service. Large tech companies (and many other industries) will just quietly fuck the regular customer over because they can't profitably do customer service at scale. Even Amazon's effectively no questions asked return policy is a band-aid over the forgeries and trash that fill their hyperscale market.

If you have a problem with an item that Mcmaster sends you, they're going to go have a stern talk with the manufacturer. They sell reliability, not race to the bottom capitalism.

(I've also heard that they really take care of their employees. People in jobs that are automated away are always retrained; they'll pay for college with no qualifications, because education is good even if they don't directly benefit, etc.)

I believe the American Supreme Court explicitly ruled against that in the past ~10 or so years. Except it was one GPS tracker on one car, done without a warrant.

I don't know why that decision, explicitly founded on "making warrantless surveillance too easy violates the intent of warrants" is being used as toilet paper.

I've dreamt of governments hiring devs with promises of full time OSS work. It _might_ get some people over the lower salaries of government work. But I overheard a state CIO once say "We configure, we don't create".

That's to say nothing about opinions of open source that rival early 2000s Microsoft.

For old ass critical software and hardware, the org can always have a backlog of hardware and contingency plans (paying someone to fix the hardware, paying someone to create a fully certified and modern solution..) for when they start running out of parts.

Oh, definitely. But what my parent comment was suggesting that PE do for their dentist is what 10% business management companies were already doing.

An acquaintance doctor in vet med was pitched 10% ownership in a practice buyout; PE would do business management. The doctor countered with the PE company getting 10%, since they won't be doing any medicine. The PE company declined.

I don't agree with the parent of your comment, but saying they're a Maoist is way too far from my request of steelmanning.

In human med, it's a pretty standard practice to offer a management company 10% ownership for them to handle the business shit.

I'm not arguing with you; I'm legitimately curious what happened to that model and why PE has swooped in as more attractive to doctors. Maybe it's the payout and/or the fact that they don't have to handle business owner decisions at _all_ anymore?

Can someone steelman private equity, please? I'm honestly looking for the upsides (for non-investors) of when PE moves into an industry like medicine and begins buying up businesses that traditionally aren't already large chains.

I already hear the downsides frequently from someone whose work is directly affected.

> The issue is scale

A guest on a podcast said, in response to open source and community websites being flooded with AI scrapers, "the internet has always had people scanning websites; get over it".

I still respect the podcast, but that was such a shitty take. The difference between before and now was that those websites started closing their doors instead of paying the increased hosting feeds.

I'll get over it when we stop giving people a pass for the damage they're doing just because they're a corporation.

Making the possession of data this either illegal or too horribly cumbersome.

Flock is just an iteration, and getting rid of that brand won't fix it. And camera tracking of normal citizens is just an iteration -- not the underlying systemic issue that isn't being addressed.

The EU has GDPR. At this point, I want something stronger than that.

Publish enough docs to let someone write a full OS?

The Pixel line is, from what I can see, a tiny part of the smart phone market share.

So, yes, I can buy a phone that I can mostly control (at the risk of losing access to some draconian apps). But most devices being sold don't allow consumer control.