Zamaamiro

Classic over-engineering. Their approach is just fine 90% of the time for the use case it’s intended for.

Idealism is thinking you can bomb a country’s cities with impunity and not expect any blowback.

Russians are using those planes to bomb Ukrainian cities and murder Ukrainian civilians.

“Amazing” is the correct word for it

You probably didn’t write up a detailed prompt with perfect specifications in 10 seconds, either.

In my experience, it doesn’t matter how good or detailed the prompt is—after enough lines of code, the LLM starts making design decisions for you.

This is why I don’t accept LLM completions for anything that isn’t short enough to quickly verify that it is implemented exactly as I would have myself. Usually, that’s boilerplate code.

I’m working on a research cybersecurity tool that attempts to combine the natural language understanding and information synthesis strengths of LLM-driven agents with symbolic logic and knowledge bases expressed as Datalog programs for determinism and declarative semantics.

The approach is to perform system scanning using a combination of LLMs and traditional algorithms to dynamically populate a Datalog knowledge base. The facts of the program are constrained to a predefined “model schema” of sorts and a predefined set of rules that encode specialized domain knowledge of how new facts can be derived from known facts.

We generate proof trees / attack graphs from the knowledge base and queries posed to it. The attack graph uses big-step semantics to plan and guide the execution flow, and the system dispatches to agents with tool use to fill in the details and implement the small-step semantics, so to speak. This may include API calls to a Metasploit Framework server or RAG over vulnerability and exploit databases.

We use Pydantic AI to constrain the LLM output to predefined schemas at each step, with a dash of fuzzy string matching and processing to enforce canonicalization of, e.g., software names and other entities.

Tl;dr: neurosymbolic AI research tool for cybersecurity analysis and pentesting.

No, but we're not just importing stuff because it keeps port workers busy. We import stuff because there is demand for it, and port workers' labor generates many multiples of profitable business activity downstream.

That's not what trickle-down economics mean.

Trickle-down is the idea that giving tax breaks or benefits to the wealthy or big corporations will eventually benefit everyone else through increased investment or job creation. What I’m talking about here is the basic flow of goods and services in an economy—when that gets disrupted, the effects hit workers and consumers directly, not eventually or indirectly.

When imports slow down, businesses have fewer goods to sell or face higher input costs. That leads to higher prices for consumers and layoffs for workers. It doesn’t just impact “the rich.”

This isn’t about trickle-down economics; it’s about how supply chains work. The impact of these tariffs will show up in lost jobs, higher prices, and reduced access to everyday goods. Those are real effects for regular people, not just abstract economic concerns.

Reduced shipping volumes immediately mean less work for truckers—thousands of people taking a hit to their income right off the bat, which in turns leads to less economic activity. This is exactly what people mean when they say no part of the economy exists in a vacuum. It’s all connected.

Kevin O'Leary is not a credentialed economist.

It's an unpopular opinion because it's wrong.

No single aspect of the economy exists in a vacuum. Tariffs and lower shipping volumes portend thousands of small businesses potentially going under, translating to many more thousands of people losing their jobs and incomes. This has many unforeseen knock-on effects in declining economic activity.

This is a bad comparison.

Tobacco and alcohol, both of which have objective, measurable negative health outcomes supported by decades of research, versus some vague notion of "junk products" as defined by... who? And this is without even getting into the fact that the tariffs will raise the price of everything, not just these supposed "junk products."

I don't see how any of this refutes the claim that the Chinese population has a much greater pain threshold than the US. If anything, you're only bolstering the claim.

Weird gotcha attempt. Who are you even speaking to? Are these "anti-capitalists" in the room with us right now?