Supermancho

> Trump admin, to their credit, seem to have somehow figured this out.

> They bailed out Intel and the stock recovered.

This is not demonstrated. What did the Trump admin "figure out"? Socializing private losses (especially if it's only temporary), is another problem, not a solution.

The model is as useful as the predictions. The factor by which the GDP is boosted based on tech stocks valuations is the random factor. Including tech speculation has distorted the published GDP. Granted, tech speculation is cause for increased velocity, without commensurate production.

Modeling that the GDP goes up because people are buying bitcoin would be the equivalent of the AI investment effect. A key difference being that the AI companies are currently included in the calculation and bitcoin is not. I don't mean to imply that the AI companies are transparently ponzi schemes, but they are all massively overvalued. The net GDP effect should be very very small if not negative, while the valuations are being used to justify a growing GDP that would otherwise have obviously fallen.

> What is your definition of depression, exactly?

A real GDP decline of over 10% year over year for more than 1 year is the biggest signal. Ofc, I noticed the US Federal Government has been cooking the books since at least H. W. Bush (maybe longer) by including tech stock potential gains as part of GDP. Take out tech stocks, the US economy looks like it will to historians.

Even in the modern day, an economic depression is associated with massive unemployment, deflation, reductions in the trifecta of industrial output + consumer spending + international trade, with the final kicker being reduced credit availability. Currently, interest rates are relatively high (historically middling) which has effectively restricted consumer credit, while the national credit rating has fallen.

The 3% growth in the us market is virtually (90%+?) all in AI company valuations/investment. It is a depression, that hasnt been announced. Wait till after midterms for the blame to be leveled with the announcement.

> Solar panels are literally plug-and-play

This is incorrect. Treating solar panels like batteries for specific appliances (or integrated like the panel on a Solocam S220), is not the use case nor is this a discussion about off-grid or microhomes.

I would suggest not making broad statements about what can and can't be taxed in the future.

Solar panels added to a grid is not plug and play.

When you're connecting solar to a municipal grid (which is what most homes are connected to), it could theoretically be taxed or even subjected to a tariff. The "added" power (often excess) is monitored for billing credits/payout/other, among other reasons like grid integrity.

> "this error is getting swallowed, make sure the real termination message exposes the root cause"

Without judgement, I think this illustrates a fundamental objection the anti-AI crowd raises.

The example prompt requires no understanding of what's happening, before suggesting action. Where I work, process requires that a PR review for a solution, has to have a corresponding explanation of why, or it's marked needs work

This statement stood out to me.

> I have a similar thought about "there's no reason for software to be slow" BTW; in many cases, if you use AI to speed up some flow, you will add a bunch of messy code that will be overfit for the use case you tested on and will neither generalize, perf-wise, for all the use cases you should care about, nor will be maintainable upon future changes.

LLMs have hardened hundreds of apps where I work.

Maybe it's a language-specific thing. Most of the time, in Java, LLMs take into consideration tradeoffs (especially if they are part of the initial prompt) and actively explains them. It generally won't make messy workarounds, without a lot of extra prompting forcing it to do so.

Ofc, if you have:

- Functional tests - you'll be able to see it in the execution times of specific APIs

- Stress testing - performance profiling is the most important output artifact

> Even North Korea doesn't eliminate voting. People there still vote, just very controllable by the government.

I don't consider this voting. After a regime has already taken power (during which time voting is suspended), there is often (not always) allowed performative ritual as a cultural placebo. Regulated physical acts are not the same as suffrage.

> Compulsory voting is an instrument to build authoritarianism, not to prevent it.

On what basis does someone make this claim? Authoritarianism is a broad stroke. Most of the time, they eliminate voting, not make it compulsory.

Classically, an authoritarian power only care about voting to initially take hold of power. Every attempt to coerce voting (one way or the other) after that is performative, not instrumental.

AI icons, ofc...some of which are questionable (as it is with AI). Many of them are generic clock tower icons with small variations, while some are showing an icon that is based on a marginal attraction in the area. eg Irvine is known for the Irvine Company, John Wayne Airport, not for the symbolic amusement park hot air balloon raised in 2007.

The resignations do not translate to pacifism. In regards to the worker-workplace relationship, it's a confrontational maxim.

The next 50 years will cause all industrial countries to face an irregular demographic profile, weighted toward the elderly. The median age in China is almost 41, while the US is reaching 39. In the US, the elderly (65+) will be almost 1 in 4 of the population ~2050. In contrast, boomers were 37% of the US population at their height (elderly were ~9.5%).

There is no underpopulation hysteria. However, the math around demographics is settled.