zdragnar

MAD / MAC assumes everyone has the same leverage on each other- that they are all as heavily invested in capital.

Where it falls apart is when you get companies that take open models, rent compute and sell tokens at a profit, without heavy investment into research or training. They spend way less, and if they can keep distilling the frontier models, they can produce reasonable products without the massive losses of subscription plans. In your example, DeepSeek et al aren't nearly so vulnerable. There's nothing mutually assured.

It is much more of a classic race to the bottom. Every new frontier model shifts the goal posts a bit, but eventually the house of cards will crumble - or at least, that's what the market seems to be thinking will happen.

> If you're just looking at caffeine intake you'd be better off switching from coffee to energy drinks

This is less true now than it used to be. I'm somewhat sensitive to caffeine and always look on the can to see how much is in it, and 150 is on the low side of most of the options available now-. 200 to 300 seems to be a lot more common among the brands that are newer than when monster and Rockstar first came out.

Quite a few candies still use it, including I think jelly beans, gums and chocolates. Candy corn is far from the standout here.

BlackBerry supported incredibly fine grained permissions way back in the day, and even that wasn't sophisticated enough to support OP's use case.

I don't really even care what OP's good intentions are, because the minute the app is sold, those good intentions are out the window. I use very few apps because I assume they are always going to potentially be adversarial to my interests.

The system warning is correct and should not be subject to the developer promising free candy to gullible users.

If you're working hourly from home and it saves you 30 minutes, or sick and can't leave the house, or the baby is napping and you don't want to wake her up, etc etc, it's more than paid for itself.

That's not to say it is worth it as an axiomatic rule, but it's something some people will choose from among the options available to them, which may be many or few, as dictated by their circumstances.

That's every single winter where I live in the US. We don't have a word for it like the Germans do, though, we just call it January.

How else will we convince everyone they have to live in a tiny box in a mega city without eliminating remote work?

Because the AI company CEO was telling everyone who would listen that his product might end humanity if the government didn't regulate his industry to kill off his competitors.

Either I missed or was added in an edit the bit about having roommates. That's definitely absurd. I was paying that amount for an entire house in a nice suburb maybe 8 or 9 years ago. Even with only one roommate paying the same amount, they are together paying way more than my mortgage for a house in the country with 5 acres of land and waterfront along one entire side.

I imagine they're in a high cost of living area, where tons of other people want to live. If that's the case, it probably shouldn't be any surprise that in a supply restricted market, the prices are also very high.

Assuming they work full time, that is pretty average. The old "30%" rule is that you should spend no more than 30% of your pre-tax wages on rent. Your friend is spending just over a quarter post-taxes.

I don't know about roc specifically, but the best projects often come out of something someone built for a particular need. The open source / public version will often need work to strip out stuff specific to the original project, as well as refinement to make it more suitable for generic public consumption, such as adding support for edge cases, features that the original project didn't need but others likely will, support for multiple platforms for deployment, etc.

Science fiction and think pieces aren't documentation, they are whimsy. Science fiction in particular is intentionally dramatic for the purposes of entertainment.

AI definitely shouldn't be informing its option of humanity or machines from it, aside from the propensity for science fiction writers to enjoy moralizing and anti capitalism sentiments.

> in general a proxy can protect you from more. It's strictly additive security, right

No, the proxy itself may have memory vulnerabilities that could give attackers remote code execution capabilities.

AI writing the code doesn't make it safer. It is prone to making all the same mistakes humans do.

AI reviewing the code does help, though.