Supermancho

> I always do not understand why defold

Starting with absolutely nothing but a compiler is always going to be a worse experience (and less likely to result in anything released) than a GUI-driven and aided solution. If Defold developers had produced a fraction of the libraries that Godot has, it might have had a chance. As of now, it's worse than other abandoned engines like Solar2D (was CoronaSDK) for people entering the space. As most people know, the vast majority of games are net-losses, so engines live and die by the ease of adoption by newcomers.

> most people don't really understand the market they are in, the competition, their own products, the customers etc well enough to actually make good decisions

"Product" studies this data and tells engineers what features they want. I am rarely instructed to A/B anything...excepting when it's defensive, to ensure the first rule of "don't interrupt the flow of money" is upheld, if at all. Most of the features are obvious improvements anyway (determined from plain conceptual planning, manual testing, and personal usage).

ofc I don't understand the customer or market or anything else. I'm paid with the expectation that I'm not going to share an opinion about it, especially since am never exposed to the raw data and inner circle decisioning except during a quarterly meeting...maybe. This is part of why AI is so successful. Humans in large organizations are specialized with little creative input and lots of mechanical process. Coding is largely a mechanical black box (turing machine) from the outside looking in. It works seamlessly because I don't need to know about the things product wants, so the AI doesn't know and everyone carries on faster than we were before.

Understanding code is trivial, with AI support. LLMs are better at summarizing and identifying side effects than writing code. Granted, not perfect, but about as good as a person.

Looking at an architecture, module boundaries, and comparing the organization to the domain is the part LLMs don't do well and is unironically difficult for humans. The less you care about the domain (ie having a mental model), the harder it is.

> Difficulty is, by definition, relative to one's skill

It's a factor and not the sole factor. Saying it's "by definition" is incorrect.

> The author does a poor job of justifying why these pop-cognitive-psych theories should have more weight than prior exposure.

There's no reason to believe either way, except one path has decades of evidence. Human behavior is not overcome by programmatic "elegance". The dismissive "pop" prefix is signaling bias.

> no magic keywords and syntax to memorize

ie no syntactic sugar. Pointless repetition is counter productive.

>a there's no [logical] way to fall through >b [no way to] forget an else, >c expressions instead of statements >d no early returns

b. The interpreter catches it. d. Pointless execution is counter productive.

> literally everything about the Lisp example is more readable to me

That's a single data point. Statistically it's worse, but you're practiced and apparently still physically able to quickly discern the nested count (or use an IDE). Yet another example of a position that is counter to existing studies. Heavy nesting is error prone, even when a program compiles (eg Monden et al., “Evaluating the Applicability of Reliability Prediction Models between Different Software,” ISSRE 2001)

"parse don't validate" can be rephrased: "expect the type validation from a parser"

Which is plainly moving the problem around, for types. The value validation is a much simpler problem, as a separate application-specific check.

> Life-ruining? No, not at all. Not even close.

Indeed. Some privileged people confuse being denied opportunity (rightfully) with a life being "ruined". It's a telling behavior rooted in entitlement.

Those poors have to deal with this often, which is considered a "them" problem. Be it because of credit score, carried debt, criminal record, or loss of license, etc, as I have seen and experienced.

The US map wasn't showing Dunkin vs Starbucks for ND. It's Starbucks at volume, by a wide margin, while Dunkin popularity by coverage. How they couldn't measure, is beyond me when there are so few Starbucks and Dunkins that you could manually call them all over a few days.

> It would have a large direct and MASSIVE indirect chilling effect.

Like it did with Ma Bell (the effective telephone monopoly)? No. I'm pretty sure it would have the direct opposite (open frontier) effect. The direct steps to break up a company are well telegraphed to the market.

The first sentence is plain English. The second is clarification through example.

Someone who doesn't know what arbitrary or abstract means, or has trouble with context, I'm sure it can seem confusing.

> I am assuming that your point is that prejudice is ok to some type of group but not other

That's a bad inference. I was explaining the distinction that seems to be confusing the issue.

> Care to give some examples of what you consider to be coordinated groups, functional groups, and abstract groups?

You understand plain English well enough.

Arbitrary classification does not make a functional group. There is a distinct difference between a coordinated group and an abstract group that is the result of external parties adding people into named buckets for their own purposes.

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.