horizion2025

Your own conclusion, smaller, concrete units, is the right direction. Except by units I don't mean partitioing the program into smaller units (files, modules). In fact, you should stop thinking about implementation at all. I'm thinking more about the way of asking the LLM to build it. One feature at a time etc. so you can tighten the feedback loop. Then you can early on (in the first hour say): "I also need a way that the user can add/manage clients - basic CRUD" and that small sentence might be enough the model makes it all (UI, API, backend etc.) to enable that and put it in a proper place in the app. A big ambiguous spec defers that discovery to the worst possible moment.

Firstly, the "AI" discussed here is not LLM's. They are talking about visual quality inspection systems. There's been many other articles in the press: Ford's new quality automation is computer-vision defect inspection, built on IBM's visual-inspection tech, iPhones photographing parts on the line, running since 2020. By most reporting it works fine, pushing detection rates from ~70% manual to 99%+. This is classical CNN at work doing the job of quality inspectors... completely unrelated to desk-work by an engineer or what LLM's do... yet that's exactly the inference the headline invites (and many here in the comments seem to be making).

The timing only underlines it: rehiring is presented as the cleanup. Apparently the rehirings started 3 years ago, so whatever it's undoing is older still and therefore unlikely to be LLM driven. While ChatGPT did come out 3.5 years ago it seems doubtful someone would fire people left and right the moment they saw the first ChatGPT... only to then regret almost it immedaitely and rehire them - all within the span of 6 months.

This further supports that the article is about years-old automation bet being quietly unwound, and is completely unrelated to mainstream discussion about AI and jobs today.

Also, 350 rehires is just noise. Ford is shedding thousands right now: plant pauses, battery-plant retooling, projected restructuring in the 8–13k range.

Finally, as always with corporate announcements... ask why an internal staffing decision is even a press story. To me this feels like PR (a nice feel good story that ties into to a subject people discuss a lot now). It takes the sting out of all their announced layoffs. There's probably also internal company politics to it (someone suggested rehirings and now want to say 'see what a great idea this was' and maxx it out).

So in other areas than the lower back, everyone - tan bed users or not - have these supposed seeds of melanoma as well? And that is for a much larger area of the skin than the one mentioned.

Also I wonder about the quote that a mutated cell can never go back. The immune system could kill the mutated cells and thereby promote the unmutated ones. Though nothing is perfect of course. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jan/analysis-protective-lung...

But the screenshot says the md file was created in 2009, so that would be 16 years?

Is this true? I was of the belief that standard vacuum doesnt move any data even within a page... It merely enables dead tuples to be reused in the future. But I could be mistaken

Further, maybe it has not been a focus for compiler vendors to generate good code for these higher-level archs if few are using the feature. So Ubuntu's move could improve that.

Oh and there is also non compliant implementations. E.g. some passports (yes the passports with chip use tons of ASN.1) even have incorrect including of big integers (supposed to be the minimum two complement, as I recall some passports used a fixed non-complement format yanked into the 0x02 INTEGER type... Some libraries have special non-compliant parsing modes to deal with it).

Just a few things we owe Galileo in physics:

* The principle of relativity. You might think that was Einstein, but the first theory of relativity was by Galileo in his 1632 "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" (before Newton was even born!). Galileo introduced this idea with a brilliant thought experiment: He asked the reader to imagine being in a windowless cabin on a smoothly sailing ship. He argued that no experiment you could perform inside the cabin (dropping a ball, watching flies, etc.) could tell you whether the ship was at rest or moving at a constant velocity. All the laws of mechanics would behave identically. This is the cornerstone of classical mechanics. In the context of special relativity, Einstein "merely" added 'the speed of light is c' to the list of laws of nature that hold in all inertial frames. But the general way of viewing laws of nature relative as being invariant to motion was Galileo's (the principle of inertia), and essentially the starting point for Newtonian mechanics. It doesn't seem like the work of someone only able to fiddle around with scales.

* The Law of Falling Bodies: The discovery that the distance an object falls is proportional to the square of the time. The first truly modern mathematical law of physics.

* Detailed telescopic observations: Moons of Jupiter, Phases of Venus, Mountains on the Moon & Sunspots, etc.

Essentially: you advance a claim that you hope will be interpreted by the audience in a "wide" way (avoid = eliminate) even though this could be difficult to defend. On the rare occasions some would call you on it, the claim is such it allows you to retreat to an interpretation that is more easily defensible ("with the word 'avoid' I only meant it reduces the risk, not eliminates").