justapassenger

And it's problem specific to software engineering. Any engineering deals with it - when you manufacture physical things, for example, tolerances, safety factors, etc, are all tools to deal with reality being messy.

Sora fading may just reinforce that companies need to continue to focus on sneaking in AI slop manifesting as content to drive adoption.

> Many times there are certain chunks which will occur many times in the code of a program. Instead of taking the time to translate them all separately, QEMU stores the chunks and their native translation, next time simply executing the native translation instead of doing translation a second time. Thus, Bellard invented the first processor emulator that could achieve near native performance in certain instances.

JIT is about as old as Fabrice, or even older depending on what you consider a modern JIT.

Most of flights today are glorified busses, with less room, that just happen to have wings attached and staff trying to sell you things.

2. A lot of their services have less criticality (and it's not a ding at them - it's often very explicit design choice).

3. App store having hiccups or iCloud backups being delayed it's not something that will usually gather enough attention of media.

But many end users prefer dealing with bugs than with inflexible software that doesn’t understand all the different ways how real world is messy and hard to model.

I hate using Excel. But I 100% understand why world runs on it.

But given that Excel is the second-best tool for everything, world runs on it.

And when you try to build systems to replace Excel for a specific task, you quickly learn how extremely powerful Excel is and how hard is to replace it and add value that customers would care about.

It has all the same components, just on much higher scale:

1. Billionaire con-man convincing large part of market and industry (Altman in AI vs Musk in EV) that new tech will take over in few years.

2. Insane valuations not supported by an actual ROI.

3. Very interesting and amazing underlying technology.

4. Governments jumping on the hype and enabling it.

But also, since you're telling me there had been no material impacts to the customers timelines, sorry, I don't think you're arguing in good faith, so I'm not going to engage here anymore.

Getting Starship to the orbit means that they have something called Starship in the orbit. It doesn't mean product that they sold isn't vaporware - what was sold with a name of Starship included much more things than getting stage 2 into orbit.

Blue Origin may fail (I couldn't care less about them or SpaceX), but yes, they're in final validation steps, as that's just how they develop things.

Starship is at the stage of putting random ideas on the rocket and seeing if it explodes.

There's nothing even remotely reassembling what was advertised to the public (and sold to the government) as Starship.

It's Duke Nukem Forever.

"a computer-related product that has been widely advertised but has not and may never become available"

It's not available and it's going to be the same as all products coming from their CEO - it maybe one day available, but only thing it'll share with original announced product is a name. Nowhere close on the cost/features/scale/etc.

Only things that were shown so far are prototypes that are many iterations away from being anywhere close to a product.

New Glenn is actual product that's just going through final validation steps.

"Revenue? No no no no. Why would you go after revenue? If you show people revenue, they’ll ask ‘how much?’. And it will never be enough. The company that was the 100x-er or the 1000x-er becomes the 2x dog. But if you have no revenue, you can say you’re pre-revenue and you’re a potential pure play.”

We took it now from no revenue to no actual product, or even a concept of a product.

Does decentralized solar plus batteries give you same amount of reliability? How many days without sunny weather can you survive without having to change your energy use habits?

Each 9 of reliability for infrastructure is EXTREMELY expensive. And grid has a lot of 9s.

If I'd follow any of the suggestions I'd probably be in ER. Even after me pointing out issues and asking it to improve - it'd come up with more and more sophistical ways of doing same fundamentally dangerous actions.

LLMs are AMAZING tools, but they are just that - tools. There's no actual intelligence there. And the confidence with which they spew dangerous BS is stunning.

And one may argue - it's not malicious compliance. It's just how world is setup for big companies. Any other strategy is leaving huge amount of money on the table - that's not what shareholders want. Unless you're willing to have fines that exceed the profits (and not just say about possibility of those, but actually impose and collect them) it's not going to change.

Multi cloud redundancy is like Java being a solution to platform independency.