brightball

The polyglot and cybersecurity conference for all who code in Greenville, SC!

A vote should end up showing that to be the case at least.

Just speculating on the math.

To some degree I think there's a hope that it becomes like a gym membership. If everybody used their membership, the gym would be too crowded. It's all of those memberships that people feel like they need to have but don't use where the extra profit comes in.

As long as the power users are paying per token, everything is good.

In 2012 I took over a Perl project that was running on 25 BSD servers (OpenBSD I think?) that had not been updated / patched since 2000. It was an interesting time.

Does this work as a credit card system or for debit only?

There are people who still believe the Hunter Biden laptop was fake.

The bubble is not a one side issue.

My friend, we all live in bubbles of our algorithms. There are only the people who are aware of it and those who believe it's just the "other side."

> "Better qualified" generally boils down to "people who look like me".

...it's math. If you hire from 60% instead of 100%, you're intentionally eliminating potential candidates. Whether you're talking about immigration policy or diversity policy. It's just math.

On fraud, I hear just as much concern about disability fraud. If it's coming out of taxes, either state or federal, taxpayers are paying for it or going into debt for it or seeing the currency inflated for it.

> they despise the diversity programs and social safety nets that could help protect the disadvantaged

I live in the southeast US and get to talk politics with a lot of people on the right. This isn't accurate.

The dislike diversity programs because those programs naturally take away opportunities from people who are better qualified. Sure there are many candidates who will be both the most qualified for the position and meet a diversity standard, but when you force the diversity qualification you force the organization to only draw from a smaller section of the pool. It's the same problem that people on the left have with restrictive policies around immigration potentially depriving organizations of the top candidates from around the world, just more localized. They are exactly the same issue, just viewed from different angles.

Regarding social safety nets, the primary concern has always been fraud. I've heard variations of this conversation for decades and it's always fraud. The idea that a safety net is not intended to be a long term lifestyle. They prioritize the idea of a "hand up, not a hand out" with a goal of providing temporary assistance with financial education, career training, etc. It has nothing to do with removing something that can protect the disadvantaged and everything to do with trying to solve the disadvantage itself long term.

Hope that provides some context.

> People routinely vote for candidates that will worsen their lives

This is a line I see often by people (not you, just to be clear) puzzled because somebody didn't "vote for their own self interest" or at least that is the perception of the person making the statement. I've seen variations of it for at least 30 years. You'd often see it around pressure campaigns to unionize especially.

The shock about the perception is always funny to me, because it reads as shock that someone refused a bribe or was not easily manipulated.

Goodhart's Law in effect right there.

Oracle?

Didn’t Tencent do a study comparing AI performance across about 20 languages showing that Elixir was the top performer?

I heard a talk from a VP at NVIDIA a couple of months ago and he echoed this. Essentially their policy is "you are still fully responsible for the code you ship, whether AI helps with it or not"

Yea, empty response at a valid path. Isn’t 204 the code for it?

Lots of REST libraries that I’ve used treat any 400 response as an error so generating a 404 when for an empty list would just create more headaches.

It’s remarkably appropriate in a article where we are talking about a shortage…

2 refineries in California were closed over the last 2 years leading to a 17% reduction in total refining capacity.

Per the article, the type of fuel needed by California standards is produced at refineries in India, South Korea and Washington.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65704

Didn't California shut down 2 high capacity refineries in the last couple of years?

I remember back in the day Heroku had a huge store of integrations that you could just turn on with a click and they worked like that. You'd get a New Relic account that was tailored to dyno performance and you accessed it via your Heroku dashboard.

It became "the way" a lot of these PaaS systems operated and I'm sure the goal was to get some percentage once you increased your usage from the free tier, which makes sense for the PaaS partner.

What’s party van?

We need to bring back BBS's over short range radio transmitters.

The early dialup and BBS world was magic and it pulls everything completely off of the standard channels.

I'm going to treat this as a genuine question.

If your goal is to get into a debate on the financial returns to yourself based on children as some sort of investment vehicle then this won't go very far.

At a macro level, without children human civilization ceases to exist. That's the extreme case.

At a personal level, you have to look an intentional decision not to have children and compare it to the alternative. I am not including those who are unable to have children in this because I have known many couples through my life who weren't able and I fully realize what a difficult subject it is.

For those who chose not to have children, what is the ultimate financial or life goal? To have more disposable income to buy stuff, eat more fancy dinners? What's the point of investing or saving if you won't be able to pass it on?

Choosing not to have children is the result of years of pandering influence trying to convince people that they can't afford it, they aren't good enough, they'll be less happy, they'll have less avocado toast or a less important career. The goal of the marketing is two fold: either a) pander to a person's selfishness and convince them of all they will lose by having children or b) pander to a person's selflessness and convince them that the world is an overpopulated, terrible place that no compassionate person could possibly bring a child into. Both are coordinated messages designed to convince you not to have children.

Having children, on the other hand, ensures continuity of civilization. Ensures continuity of your family. Everything that you have learned that you feel value to pass on you get to teach to your children. You get to watch them grow up, teach them lessons from your own life, watch them become good citizens helping other people, falling in love, starting families of their own and contributing to society. You spend your life guiding them, helping them through difficulties.

All of the investments that you make financially can be passed on. You teach your children the financial lessons that you've learned and about the areas you wish you knew more about so that they may be able to be good stewards and improve on it from there. You teach them to be generous, to be charitable, to volunteer. You get to watch your children, grandchildren and sometimes even great grandchildren grow. And when you get old, that same family is there to care for you in your time of need.

Everything about your children is a multiplier of your family's values; your values.

Some of the people I mentioned who couldn't have children of their own chose to adopt. Some of them poured their time and energy into the service and education of youth. It's working towards the same goal.

Having children is one of life's greatest gifts. The institutions going out of their way to try to convince people not to have children are some of the most malicious that the world has ever known. If we were to ever quantify the number of lives that simply don't exist today as a result of those messages, the toll would be extreme. For people who have fallen victim to those messages, I hope there's still time to realize the truth.

But you’d have that coding it yourself…

I evaluated the pricing and could not justify the jump to Enterprise from Team. You lose the monthly subscription entirely when you jump to enterprise so you lose your ability to control costs.

You can cap per user, but not having the rolling cap are you really just going to tell a member of your team “No AI for the rest of the month”

It’s a risky deal as it sets up now IMO.

IMO everything you mention is the reason for the Cursor deal.

Grok integration in a Tesla is doing it muuuuuuuch better.

I suggest that the costs around children are a marketing scare tactic from people who want to create a fear of having children.

> This means having a kid loses parents around one quarter to one third of their total lifetime income.

There's no better investment.