Supermancho

related: Crosswalks don't stop cars from hitting pedestrians crossing on them. Perfect is the enemy of good.

I would not recommend this setup, which is effectively using a more complicated and error prone system. That being said, I could handle it.

The world knew about him since at least Clinton and suspected since before then. The hard evidence has resulted in the same things the suspicions did, save the single arrest of Maxwell.

He really had nothing that "the public" could effect and likely believed he would be spirited away to Israel at some point in a trial. He could then proceed to set up his circus in any number of locations, including superyachts (as many of the "parties" did occur on them).

This idea that he had overwhelming shame, does not make sense.

Your narrative is repeated less and less because it isnt compelling.

My narrative is substantially different because the trend was correct and 1.4 vs 2.0 does not prove a negative.

The massive FUD and misinformation campaigns by industrialist operations, along with opportunist/capitalist denials and misdirection, has successfully confused enough of the US public to withold opinion on the matter. This has allowed politics to treat it as a marginal issue where there are 2 sides, rather than a morally catastrophic eventuality.

The term "harness" here is being overloaded for the term "agent", which is worrying. Putting that aside, there are many factors that matter. The "harness" context, the execution pattern (parallel vs sequential), the ability to delegate to other models, etc.

Optimal harnesses use concurrent execution + subagents and are not stuck on one model. Cost and performance are impacted GREATLY by these tactics, regardless of the native agent context (instruction). This kind of single-harness analysis is shallow and misleading, although the finding that "Provider-specific optimization does not guarantee the best pairing" is probably correct, depending on how you measure.

It is a starting point.

What Trump says is never clear. It's also not a reliable source for what behavior the administration (or even he) exhibits.

> he caused a large part of it for unclear reasons

Technically it was Besset, but Trump gave him the reigns.

The purpose seems to be to radically debase the dollar and setup a crises that requires an entitlement cut (Social Security) for "the good of the economy" while also expanding military spending at the same time.

Rings that can't be adjusted are ubiquitous. Walk into almost any store that sells rings, most open-air stands that sell rings, and you will find some. It's true they aren't usually preferred, but they are common.

None of these 3 problems have anything to do with it being a smart ring. Same problems that regular rings have, yet people still wear them.

1. Adulting: buying rings that are the right size. eg My tungsten wedding ring cannot be resized either.

2. Most people don't even lift. Those that do, dont mind taking off jewelry. I can see how this would be a problem for someone who wants to wear a smart ring for lifting. Sounds like an issue that should have been noticed earlier.

3. Adulting: moving the ring up and down your soapy finger and washing your hands properly.

> Actually sorry, it's beyond absurd.

So is Fox News. That's the OVERT propaganda.

If someone believed he committed even a portion of the crimes attributed to him and his associates, it follows that someone would have to believe he had firsthand knowledge. There's no reason to believe he would kill himself while still retaining that leverage.

Without a doubt, this material has been scrubbed and censored and altered. There are no lengths to which this administration (or any other) would go to, to safeguard publishing material that might be used against them or their associates.

There is no reason that anyone should consider these briefs credible (I'm sure some details are truthy). At best, it's performative theater.

The shadow of Chesterton's Fence is relevant. The LLM doesn't know why code exists, if it doesnt start traversing up the scope of a project. Even then, it can't be sure that the code isn't a dependency of something else outside the project (especially if there's a side effect). I'm not sure it's ever going to be easy to address this concern in a straightforward and portable way.

I do sometimes see duplicate functions, which is troubling.

> Efficiency, security, maintainability, reliability, readability, understandability, extensibility, maintainability, observability, portability

My experience is a little different. For higher abstraction languages the output is largely acceptable in my work. I always consider that LLMs don't know what I don't tell them and they have limited context to work from. Coding issues I often identify:

* Efficiency. Marginal by default. Coding efficiency problems often appear because LLMs dont usually consider the entire codebase or future plans (although they do guess at some futures). Sometimes they write/name things in ways that are lazy/wasted cycles. Most of the time, they don't.

* Security. Marginal by default. I say they do pretty good. Considering all the failure modes, not so much.

* Maintainability. Marginal by default. Mostly due to the careful consideration of modularity, upgrade paths, etc. while often taking wildly different approaches to solutions without having specific broad instructions. Even then, there can be big gaps in quality.

* Observability. Not acceptable by default. There's usually some consideration and can often one-shot.

* Portability. Not acceptable by default. Good, if you specify what those targets are. Regardless, testing validates this above the coding and models are very good at hitting functional test targets. This is less of an issue in something like Java ofc.

> "we all stopped coding manually around December 2025", as if AI critics don't exist.

It was obviously a generalization. The number of AI critics (which eschew AI for coding) are a minority. I would say tiny minority at this point.

> Private citizens filming in public and police forces setting up arrays of surveillance cameras in public somehow don’t seem equivalent.

The reason these strategies (for the same goal) don't seem equivalent is due to the nature of oversight. Flock as a centralized private company governed by a procedural system, can be corrupted and abused more easily than a distributed network. Flock's systems have already been abused and will continue to be.

Re Title: Flock doesn't "want" anything in particular, other than to sell more contracts and make more money.

> Most of the current discourse around AI seems to be informed by “The Terminator” lore.

I am thinking it's more like The Matrix lore of The Second Renaissance from Animatrix.

As I look back to after the Kuwait defense, the attack on Iraq and forward stopped making sense because US leadership didn't explain the rationale. Politicians didn't want to get caught up in the problematic history of dealing with Iraq and Iran, so the US charged in and pushed out Iraq under the flag of supporting an ally (the US was really serving Saudi Arabia and punishing Saddam). There was an expectation that Iraq's military over-investment would have kept them in economic check for some time.

After 9-11 it became obvious that there was a political and economic gold-rush opportunity under Cheney (who was the brains of the Bush admin). The US constructed Operation Iraqi Freedom to finally eliminate the uncontrollable and brutal Saddam family, while satisfying the needs of various parties (eg SA, Israel, Iran, Kuwait). Again the US population got a different narrative and there were no political consequences.

This trend of ignoring what the US populace needs to know, doing whatever benefits those that are in power, then constructing a fake narrative continues. The names are different, but the policy is non-existent. The difference in the Trump Administration is that the constructions challenge reality or simply don't exist. The political consequences have been the same. None[1].

Maybe it's always been this way.

[1] The primary driver of political consequence in the US seems to be economics, because that's a consequence that's measurable and cannot be rationalized as a patriotic good for some imagined future state of the world.

Copilot has enterprise controls. Its not open source. This is the easiest integration and large companies are eating it up as the path of least friction, using API cost calls. I call BS.

> If the mere act of eating a staple food item causes so many carbon emissions it contributes to planetary-scale climate change, you have an overpopulation problem.

That is incorrect. If there is one person who produces the same amount of carbon emissions, it's the same problem which is independent of population count. All resources to sustain life are going to dwindle and secondary effects will continue to amplify, regardless of humans exist at all, over a long enough period of time.

"Overpopulation" is used to define the set of problems (logistics of practical food/water production) that make climate change a secondary concern. Ofc, you can define it how you like to talk past other people.

> The president's job is to be the dumb unthinking agent of Congress

Execution will never be as simple as the textual content of a bill, so I'm not sure 'mindless' is a useful term.

While the POTUS is expected to be a bureaucrat, functionally and conceptually that is only one aspect of their responsibilities. Military oversight and diplomatic coordination as head of state, comes to mind.

The demographic collapse was a forgine conclusion in the 80s. There is no global overpopulation problem over the next century. There will be food shortages due to a lack of labor and dessicated farmland. It will be rough for the average human.

I can agree that poor people break the law more often. Not "are convicted of" but the acts.

I think the reasons are obvious and unrelated to the point of the study. Desperation, culture (broken window theory) which is critically related to average wealth, lack of opportunity, and legal veracity explains the statistics sufficiently.

Anti-capitalism does not automatically qualify as communism. Notably, if IP were to be abolished, it doesn't belong to anyone. The expectation that open anything includes some sort of DRM-like content gating is counterproductive.

No need to engage with bad faith premises. You cant convince someone who is invested in their own FUD.

> The frontend is less risky to just hand to an agent.

The smaller the problem, the less risky it is to do this, regardless of the nature of the problem. This is not a frontend-specific issue today.

> Did humans deploy the model, Or did the model deploy itself?

> It sounds like "AGI" just stands for "IPO" as it always has been.

People don't usually respond to noise.

Netflix link above, is correct.

SNL parody https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhGTtWsW9F8

or worse, Dublin.

> "a random birth is far more likely to fall near the present" is correct,

If the selection is from the population at random (as the UI indicates), but it specifically says it's based on a random year (during which humans were present) first as a filter. It's much more likely to select far from the population explosion.