imtringued

I don't care about this "class war" or even ownership of the worthless "productive forces".

If you divide a product's cost into its "cost of availability" and the variable costs, none of this would even matter.

You could just ignore your noisy neighbors fighting over who gets to be the happy one, while you in your newfound freedom are simply happy.

If it wasn't clear, if you do not divide the two costs, then their fates are intertwined and so are the outcomes.

Wild cat AI lab reaches frontier lab parity with models from 4 months ago.

Surprisingly this is both mundane news for frontier AI lab customers and terrible news for frontier AI labs.

Well, since no one has sided with the author, let the math coin clipping keep going without pause.

You're assuming that online stores care about publishing drawings or specs for their parts.

It's insane how people see something not do something they say and then talk as if it did. Insane indeed.

It's hyperbolical mathematical platonism.

The irony is that your response is more anthropocentric than arnby's comment ever was.

Your comment is too ambiguous. To you it might have a passive origin / intent, but readers assume you think the entire article is poorly written which in turn means your comment is just noise.

If you wanted to use this as an educational opportunity to say "income share of labor" and "income share of capital" you might have had a point, but I'm the one who has to tell you that.

If you have a short term increase in productivity then the first movers will accumulate a short term gain but after the technology has established itself and become widely available, there is no long term advantage anymore.

So the unfairness happens entirely during the transition. The fact that the unfair advantage can be retained over time has nothing to do with automation though.

Public debt is a ratchet because the private holders on the other side decide how much of it there is.

Well, MCUs tend to have a buffer for execute in place from flash, but often they just have SRAM as main memory which can be accessed with a fixed latency and there is not much point in having a cache.

No, it has nothing to do with economies of scale.

Grains contain both starch and oil and when you mill the grains, the oil goes rancid much faster than the starch.

If you remove the oil you have a nutritionally worse product but it lasts longer on the shelves.

Nordhaus' riksbank price winning work justifies global temperature rise to +4°C as optimal. At that point the vast majority of humanity is going to die out with just some pockets surviving.

The reason is quite basic. Global temperature includes the oceans which make up 70% of earth's surface and have a higher storage capacity for heat. So a 4°C global temperature rise might be closer to an 8°C increase to your current local average temperatures and that's the normal days. If you have heat waves those might be +15°C or more.

At those temperatures, Americans and Europeans might need air conditioned buildings just to survive. Other places will require people to wear portable air conditioners.

Obviously you'll also need to move all agriculture indoors.

Nordhaus's work is essentially pacifying neoclassical economics and telling it that business as usual is fine.

This might not be climate change denial but the effects are basically the same.

I'm not sure there is any point in hair splitting whether someone wants to or accidentially lets humanity die out.

In either case you should ignore his research.

It's not a Nobel price. It's honestly a disgrace to the Nobel price.

The entire reason Alfred Nobel even came up with the price is that he didn't want to be remembered as the merchant of death once he passed away.

He made his fortune using explosives, in other words, he made money off of killing people.

Now this guy (Nordhaus) is willingly stepping up in justifying mass extinction and then gets a "in memory of Nobel" prize, basically glorifying "the merchant of death" and thereby turning the entire Nobel price idea on its head.

Nordhaus's model is best described as an "Optimal extinction model". The type of model you would advocate because you're not going to survive until the consequences hit, so him dying today isn't some sad event, it's him shirking his responsibility to the future.

Yes, you still have to pay Jetbrains to release their prompt.

Your mistake is trying to fight people. You don't have to do that. You can just let them suffer from the consequences of their own decisions.

This is something I noticed as well.

Because humans were, loosely speaking, careful about not making egregious security mistakes, most security vulnerabilities turned out to be either harmless or the result of a programming language allowing the type of exploit to begin with.

But now we have code from non-people ordered by people who both don't care about security at all.

That means you will get maximally bad security outcomes which in turn will make governments consider regulating the software development industry. They are speed running their own demise.

I am wondering if these managers and CEOs even understand what their company's product is and that this lack of understanding is what causes them to become obsessed with things only a manager does. Which is ironic in the face of the accusations that developers are against AI because they just want to keep their jobs. It's the managers who want to live out their management fantasy.

I can choose a weak LLM to disprove your entire comment. Next time come up with something that can't be debunked in two seconds.

His top customer is skunk-ape.

You're assuming that management cares about having good software more than it cares about replacing developers with a machine.

Every single bullet point is an eldritch horror story.

Correct, the problem isn't that SpaceX no longer needs NASA, it's that SpaceX has failed to achieve any meaningful development milestones with Starship so far and the competition has either had some setbacks or isn't delivering either.

Crew dragon being retired is only a problem in so far that Starship isn't ready. It's really strange to somehow spin "SpaceX is doing something stupid that hurts customers" into "SpaceX is too competent for its customers".

As far as we know, Starship should fix the limited payload issues of Falcon 9 so why would anyone ever have to worry about Starship only launching Starlink satellites?

It's also weird how shutting down Falcon 9 and crew dragon means that SLS and Orion cannot be canceled anymore even if congress (the boogeyman) agreed.

Make this make sense.

What?

Special casing your domains to be assumed "secure" is exactly how you build vulnerabilities directly into your software.

It's an inevitable result.

Developers aren't aware because they assume a security model where the special casing is disabled.

This is AI generated so it could be wrong:

    const std = @import("std");
    
    fn performTasks(io: std.Io) !void {
        var group: std.Io.Group = .init;
        errdefer group.cancel(io);

        // Launch concurrent background jobs
        try group.async(io, simulateWorker, .{ io, 1 });
        try group.async(io, simulateWorker, .{ io, 2 });

        // Wait for all group tasks to complete
        try group.await(io);
    }
    
    fn simulateWorker(io: std.Io, id: usize) void {
        std.log.info("Worker {d} started...", .{id});
        
        // Any blocking operation (like sleeping) routes through 'io'
        // Under the hood, this will either block an OS thread or yield an event loop stack.
        io.sleep(.fromSeconds(1), .awake) catch {};
        
        std.log.info("Worker {d} finished!", .{id});
    }
    
    pub fn main() !void {
        var gpa_alloc = std.heap.GeneralPurposeAllocator(.{}){};
        defer _ = gpa_alloc.deinit();
        const allocator = gpa_alloc.allocator();
    
        // Initialize the Threaded I/O backend
        var threaded = std.Io.Threaded.init(allocator, .{
            .async_limit = std.Io.Limit.limited(4), // Max concurrent tasks in the pool
        });
        defer threaded.deinit();
        
        // Extract the generic I/O interface pointer
        const io = threaded.io();

        std.log.info("Running on Threaded backend:", .{});
        try performTasks(io);
    }


    pub fn main() !void {
        var gpa_alloc = std.heap.GeneralPurposeAllocator(.{}){};
        defer _ = gpa_alloc.deinit();
        const allocator = gpa_alloc.allocator();

        // Initialize the Evented (non-blocking) backend
        var evented: std.Io.Evented = undefined;
        try evented.init(allocator, .{
            .thread_limit = 4, // Worker threads running the event loop
        });
        defer evented.deinit();
    
        // Extract the exact same generic interface
        const io = evented.io();

        std.log.info("Running on Evented backend:", .{});
        try performTasks(io);
    }

std.Io.Threaded and std.Io.Evented are two types of IO backends. std.Io.Threaded uses blocking IO primitives and Evented uses asynchronous IO primitives. Switching between backends is done via dynamic dispatch, the used backend is passed in via an explicit function parameter.

The only real question you should have is, how does the "non-blocking" case work when the interface is still a synchronous call? Well, the answer is quite boring... You just call into the scheduler and it runs the other task inside the blocked operation.

I was promised hidden magic and implicit logic! Now I want a refund!

They have a strong incentive to make themselves look less incompetent retroactively.

If they claim their AI is too powerful to contain, they get to both pretend they are among the best AI labs and that the previous incidents weren't their fault, no, they just proved how good their models were.

What's the point in putting the vibe back in if you're implementing a specific software development process to avoid the vibe?

You're talking about your own free rider attitude, if you haven't noticed.

You say you want X but you do Y.

But then you say you don't want X, you want someone to magically make Y as good as X.

That type of wishful thinking is all the rage in politics.

Software slop made hardware slop viable.

You mean you will never get a promotion for rejecting other people's bad pull requests.