Incipient

There is growing without regard to the lower 95% (china, India, USA) which is great on paper, but arguably not great for the population. I'd say the EU, Australia, and a few other countries have done it significantly better - it's just a significantly harder approach to balance.

Edit: and probably not as effective, which risks being overtaken by others, I suppose.

Has anyone tried these security models for finding bugs from the outside vs say Fable reviewing code for bugs on the inside?

Personally I'm a big fan of the EREV (which only drives an alternator, rather than a PHEV which drives the wheels directly) due to the simpler mechanical design - however I'm not sure if it's a personal preference. I feel even a fairly small 30kw (40hp?) would make a huge difference to the utility of the vehicle, while still being small and economical.

Not disagreeing with you, but also two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone else, or someone does 'thing A' that's disagreeable, doesn't mean doing 'thing B' becomes fine.

Yeah we have too much urban sprawl, and too few people, to justify widespread public transport to eliminate the need for a household car (in Australia).

I don't think tbis quite holds - money being spent on domestically produced vehicles should be going to working families, so the money stays and is spent again in the country. Now if most of that money just goes to the mega rich, then it's fairly pointless.

But it's definitely more complex than just money saved = money spent elsewhere

I'm using fable and opus about 25%75/% respectively. I have a 3 step process - discuss a topic and create a review, convert the review to a task file and update the design docs, then finally implement the task file in code. Normally around 300-1000 loc implemented for a change, more for a new UI page or whatever.

And honestly it's incredibly good. - 50% of the time it'll generate code that I accept wholesale.

- 25%: it maybe makes a choice I don't like, or the implementation isn't the approach I liked, so I tweak it.

-10%: it needlessly creates semi-duplicate function logic, so it's a lot more code and execution paths become hard to conceptualise

-10%: it mirrors business logic it shouldn't, and subtly changes it. Which needs a huge amount of intervention to fix.

- 5% it goes completely off the rails. Eg decided that business/application logic should be in the database.

Prompt and check this honestly works very well (still waiting on tests with more than a handful of paying customers however!) but a FULLY automated agent pipeline? I'm not convinced. That last 15% of cases will make a degenerate codebase real fast.

Also without a CC subscription, paying per token, it would be horrifically expensive for my approach.

I'm not sure if agents are better or worse than humans at refactoring.

When they get it right, it works well - full context covered, full business logic recreated completely.

When they fail, they fail fairly hard. They miss some functions in a grep, or return too many and fail to address one part, and they end up with holes.

I scrutinise the work heavily, and find I rely on gut feel a lot for what's right and wrong.

This is the only POSSIBLE rational argument for this approach. 4x price, on 1/2 the customer base is still 2x revenue with less customers to deal with. They want to keep the Big Corp clients that are happy to pay.

Now if it actually works out like this, only time will tell I suppose?

I feel like humanoid robots, that can replace a worker, is genuinely going to be like the weird guaranteed income you get in those idle games. Spend $10) to increase your income by $10/tick. Buy 100 and increase it by $1000/tick! The more you invest the more you make!

Weird times...

People would provide significantly more global benefit for their cause, compared to their individual contribution, by not putting people off their cause wholesale.

Just an observation I have found recently.

Having a core system be entirely dependent on a foreign entity seems silly when there is a very viable alternative (which also saves a lot on licensing). I say VIABLE not equivalent. Linux is a lot rougher, and the change management process will be brutal. Retooling an entire department/etc to use whatever Linux has instead of entra/intune for device management will also be complex/incomplete/a learning curve.

TLDR: any govt would be crazy not to at least trial it, and see if it works.

That's always a possibility, and I'm sure it has happened a lot. I would suspect with the size of liquid it's more likely it was an exploit, but either way I don't think we'll ever know!

I'd say their description is fair. We don't have a word for vegan+fish. Pescetarianism includes eggs, milk, etc.

So they're precisely vegan, with fish.

We deal with mostly business data, doing migrations. | often works out to be a nice, non-conflicting delimiter.

This is why in a free/profit driven market you *absolutely* need strong regulation. A companies mandate isn't to make the world a better place. It's to make money. The government's job is there to make the world a better place (generalisation of keep balance, keep people safe, etc).

Australia gets given grief for being a nanny state, but it's what's required.

Gas HAS to be used as a backup for renewables today (or at least in places without good pumped hydro?). Enough batteries to supply an entire grid for a day or two is just out of reach today.

At least in Australia, I'm not sure how the dynamics go with such a geographically diverse grid like Europe.

I don't think anyone can argue using AI to do work (rather than say using it to ask you questions or something) makes you better at the details of whatever it is that it's helping you do - maths, history, code, etc.

I think the only question is, does it matter?. Do we need to know that detail any more?

Eg AI absolutely knows fastapi middleware better than me, but I do understand what it does and why. Did I need to actually know that level of detail? I genuinely don't know the answer to that...

To be fair, some of the democratic options were fairly rubbish too (from a non-US person/perspective). I'd still have preferred you didn't pick a president that'd make my commute more expensive, and drive power/influence/money further to China/Middle East however...

Unfortunately I think the US has lost the ability to vote for a moderate/centre person or party...so it's looking pretty grim.

I am not an AI evangelist by any means, but it does serve a purpose when used correctly.

I feel like if you asked any half-intelligent AI "please review these notes and flag points we should review for correctness, or check with the patient?"

I'm pretty sure it would pick up a huge chunk of issues?

Two things I've figured out with pretty good certainty 1) on an existing codebase/hand written, even fable absolutely will "make a mess" if you do large changes at once, or don't check the output.

2) with detailed, WELL NUMBERED (Claude is remarkably good at following number references), multi-level design and build documentation Claude absolutely CAN produce moderately complex applications (crud with some lightly branching business workflows).

The corollary to (2) however is can you actually get that working code to be production grade, AND maintain it? that far I haven't got yet.

Correlation does not mean causation!

...but it can. Unfortunately something like this with a huge number of independent variables, it's hard to know.

I actually really enjoyed the game on day 1!

Unfortunately, even with all the updates - they never fixed my main gripe - each planet is just lifeless, and it's basically the same few square kilometres copy and pasted over the whole planet (I'm about 120h played).

I wished they somehow made it more exciting to explore.

My experience with opus/fable is somewhat different - they CAN reject something, but it has to be phrased very deliberately.

It's a bit annoying honestly. I'm always very careful to be incredibly neutral on the direction of a request, and I'd say 10% are knocked back on on valid grounds, which is great.

On occasion I accidentally say "let's do this" and it blindly goes and does it - I spent 2 days undoing something I built that was just a truly awful idea, because I accidentally phrased it lightly as a request, not a discussion!

To the EU - we need a new global leader. Please get your act together and step up.

I realise it's mostly a synonym, however for a bit more completeness, can we say MISUSING the word seam? (as well as load bearing). Calling pretty much every shared function a seam, and every "if thing.staus == 'closed'" load bearing is blatantly wrong.

The role exists because if you and I both know AI is heading towards being a commodity (thanks China!) then openai absolutely knows it too, and they're planning HARD to avoid this existential threat.

Does $1 on home solar take away $1 from utility solar? Probably not. Does it take away more than $0.00? Definitely.

Who knows if it takes away an amount that actually matters - however in the short term at least it absolutely makes things better for the individual installing them, which is good.

I don't think the fundamental premise is much of an issue - it's what a (mostly) free market is meant to do. Someone sells a chair for $100, someone else believes they can sell it for $80, so they do. There are two main complicating factors (outside of brand reputation and possibly some others?)

1) quality - someone accepts the $80 chair which is a little bit more wonky

2) the $100 company spent a few years developing the technology to steam and bend timber to make the chair so they're marking up based on R&D and ip. The $80 chair company just copied the other tech

There is absolutely a lot of profiteering (charge what we can, not what we need to) happening, but honestly I believe that happens everywhere, including China (trivial case - wild price swings on aliexpress - they're maximising profits).

But selective subsidising still doesn't really help that. Subsidise household rooftop solar, home batteries, EVs and a whole host of other ways that directly benefit the more average person.