foolswisdom

Do you mind picking to some of these? I did a quick Google patents search but didn't find anything.

> Americans can either abide by them or get out of our market.

I think GP was talking about Americans running companies.

People (especially people who don't have a lot of hands on tech experience, or students who also aren't into building things) get the sense that writing software requires learning a lot of arcane tools. And the idea is to promise that anyone who can write a specification should be able to make software (yes, handwaving away the learning to specify well, which is a real skill with many dependent skills). This was the promise of no-code, and then they realized that the no-code system (in addition to usually being limited in power) is actually complex and requires specialized learning, and more of that the more powerful the system is. The LLM will replace SWEs approach is another take on that, because you don't need to learn a system, you prompt in natural language, and the model knows how to interface with the underlying system so you don't have to. In that sense, vibe coding is already the culmination of this goal (despite weaknesses such as maintainability issues).

I've seen it written that the main reason managers tend to want to get rid of SWEs is because they don't understand how to interface with them. Using an LLM solves that problem, because you don't need a nerd to operate it.

> I don't think the news thing would surprise anyone either.

People who you'd expect to realize this still read the news acknowledging everything they're till they get to a specific domain the news covers. A la Gell-Mann Amnesia.

The solution to that would be to force companies within the EU market to compete with each other (fair competition laws), just that idea is less popular than the first winner in a market ensuring they stay dominant (because it serves the interest of those who just got power). Same reason why big tech rules EU in the first place.

Need to submit selfies? I don't recall submitting selfies.

I own stocks, all I had to do was fill in the forms on freetaxusa.com based on the forms the brokerage gave me. Just look for non zero fields on the brokerage forms, and fill out the matching box.

If you mean something more sophisticated tax-wise, then I'm sure direct file wouldn't support it either?

Regarding the sim card, I assume that's about two factor codes? IIRC I always logged in through a code received by email.

I figure that the response uses ascii escape sequences to control the terminal (and that curl is just piping the response to the terminal).

Is there a reason you'd need to do so? What is freetaxusa.com missing that direct file gives you (other than the fact that direct file is free and supported by the government itself)?

That doesn't take away from the OP's point (and OP didn't specify what ping ponging looks like, could be the same as you're describing), you are still iterating based on the results, and updating the prompt based on issues you see in the result. It grates on a human to switch back and forth between those attempts.

The problem is that the business model is that when you outsource compliance (in this case that might be catching cheaters), the important thing is to be able to say that everyone did their best, and you don't necessarily need to do your best to say that.

Because you don't want the other side (political party) to do the same thing. The US congress has relatively recent rules designed to actually prevent this from happening, and rather keep everything in reconciliation bills. Which obviously is a great way to hobble our legislative branch. But that's the point, no one wants the other side to try their hand at being a normal legislature. Which is part of why you end up with courts (and now the executive) wielding more power, because congress is effectively weaker and less nimble/responsive than it should be.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_State...>

It's good that there are checks, but the core point remains that nimbleness is required for effectiveness. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm observing that the courts are slow, and that the same logic (slow is good) can indicate that is a good thing, which is why I take issue with general application of the concept without limiting context.

True, but at the same time, "Justice delayed is justice denied"[1]. An excessively slow justice system means that you need substantially more resources (money, and time living under the uncertainty of the outcome) to deal with it, which is part of why the threat of court action against you from a large corporation (or another entity with deep pockets) is so concerning. I know someone who was in court defending against a civil suit for ten years, and the fact that someone is litigious and able to sue is a much larger threat than it should be.

Sure, there's checks and balances, and those are good, but it's ridiculous when we allow cases to drag on and then normalize it.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_den...>

You're confusing two different things. 1 the court determined that apple subverted the original injunction, and ordered that it comply immediately (specifically calling out all the ways apple was getting around the injunction previously). 2 the court said that to issue a fine so that apple loses whatever money it gained by non-compliance would be considered a criminal matter (unless it becomes clear that there's no other way to force apple to comply with 1 above) even though it may be appropriate, and as such it is beyond the scope of what the court could order in its own, and the court refers the matter for criminal prosecution.

So this change is just apple complying with 1.

It's part of the original selling points of python, so it's not surprising that we've never stopped doing it.

Note that the vulnerability applies to the Java library (or systems that use it, like Spark),as mentioned in the original source.

> The article never says how much they detected. I can only assume it’s because it’s a nothing amount. If it was significant they would have been saying how much. It’s hard to take the article seriously as a result.

Did we read the same article? There's a table with the amounts of different metals, with the amounts found in each of the different samples.

I'm not sure I follow. Traditional computing does allow us to make this distinction, and allows us to control the scenarios when we don't want this distinction, and when we have software that doesn't implement such rules appropriately we consider it a security vulnerability.

We're just treating LLMs and agents different because we're focused on making them powerful, and there is basically no way to make the distinction with an LLM. Doesn't change the fact that we wouldn't have this problem with a traditional approach.

I think the research by anthropic released recently showed that language is handled independently of the "concepts" they convey, so first you get the concepts, then you get the translation to language.

> Fed started raising rates in Apr 2022, at which point leaders started freaking out because they know what higher rates mean, and by Jun 2022 the Fed was raising them in 0.75% increments, which was unheard of in modern economics.

You're basically making the case that it happened fast, and went up high, but everyone who paid attention to interest rates understood it was only a matter of time till it had to at least revert back to pre-covid rates (whether you think that's 1.5 or 2.3 or something, depending on how you measure), and that obviously there would need to be real layoffs after.

The excuse is really saying "it turned out more extreme than we thought", but was the behavior take responsible assuming non-extreme rate changes?

I'm sure this will be written up somewhere as an example of Google doing a good job at customer relations, despite the disaster it is for said customers.

The sounds like exactly the point OP is making. The way LLMs are spoken about implies much more than actually demonstrated.

That's nominal profit margins. It doesn't take into account the way that different parts of these conglomerates take money from one pocket and put it in the other (e.g. insurance and Healthcare providers), which means it doesn't show up in the profits for your first pocket. This is why the fact that Healthcare platforms are vertical monopolies (not just horizontal monopies) is important to this conversation.

(separately, profit capping rules means that once a monopoly is cemented, once a company has moved as much as it can from one pocket to the other, there's an internal incentive to spend money on bureaucracy).

A la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit.

> So what am I to do when I see something from this same source that I don't know about?

Well there's always <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect>. Sounds like your not as vulnerable though.

The fact that they shut down Google domains (and cloud domains now uses squarespace, who bought Google domains) shows that you can't necessarily trust they won't shut down critical GCP services either.

It matters to the companies whose business model is to make money because they have moat.

To frame it differently, if you want people and businesses to do whatever they want, you need to make sure that the businesses they depend don't become platforms without meaningful competition. But of course the dream of every company is to be so big that they essentially own the market / space.

That's true until you become big enough that common carrier regulations apply to you.

Besides, how does the first amendment enshrine that?

> You write that you can only think of games, some productivity software and legacy enterprise software as the reason for why your OS would matter. That sounds like you're a Linux user?

Or a windows user. Like myself as well.