weakened_malloc

i think OP is talking about MS365 copilot, not github copilot

OP here: I wish that were the case, however we're targetting old school businesses who unfortunately in my experience get weirded out by .io style domains

Because the size of the market was/is so small that you're actually able to corner it. Oil or Treasury futures are far too big that no single person could ever corner it.

ill swap places with you, if you like, lol

or the average human has <2 legs

Many don't though, and even if they all did, you can't hedge forever. Hedges are also rolling, so as some hedges expire the companies need to set up new hedges, which are at a worse FX rate. So the hedges lessen the impact but they aren't perfect, otherwise they would not be called 'hedges'.

Because that was 1985, and this is now. Entire supply chains, input costs, planning, etc. have been built around the assumption of the JPY trading in some sort of range.

Of course that will change over time, if it hasn't already. The Japanese government's messaging about this has been that they're not really worried about the currency weakening (after all they're massive net exporters! it should be a good thing), but rather the speed at which it's happening.

Use TextVerified, load up like $5 of credit and OAI verification is like $1.00. Then when your account is made, ensure 2FA/passkey is setup then you don't need to worry about the phone number.

As someone who's very well informed on that corner of financial markets.. you're absolutely right. 66bn might cause some minor moves in yields but it's far from a disaster.

US 10y bond auctions are often >40bn in size, with shorter maturities well over that. The seller of this debt (China) wouldn't want to smash the market because they'd only be shooting themselves in the foot.

Point being that it's an easily digestible amount of debt.

The Chinese (or anyone, for that matter) can't just 'call' US debt. They can either wait for it to mature or sell it to someone else.

> The slippery slope argument is nonsense

If you're going to operate from that point of view there's really no point to further explaining how a bill like this would adversely affect people. One only needs to look as far as the 'temporary' measures in the patriot act to understand that slippery slope arguments are often not so silly. The Overton window moves with laws like this.

Maybe the tinfoil hat is also getting a little tight, but something like this is a giant repository of internal cybersec data being put into one place. The model will see what people are fixing and anyone peering in can make an educated guess on how long that vulnerability may continue existing because people don't update when they should - the alphabet boys wouldn't be able to keep their hand out of the cookie jar.

The difference is that those other things in the past didn't really place an undue burden on everybody else. Whether a child is allowed to watch an R rated movie or go to a pub has no effect on how I conduct myself, age-gating computers or the internet does affect how I use things.

> I think the theory behind the law is that experimenting on children to optimize (without any ceiling) for increasing watch hours, which 100% of the social media sites are doing at all times and have been for over a decade, is unethical and should be illegal.

I agree, and I think this is where the focus should be. It places no burden on any regular consumer to do anything and all the burden on the platform providers.

I was just using that as an example with the private sector, but my opinion is equivalent to the public sector. Democratising access to legal knowledge / help / assistance is a good thing, regardless of the effect it has on public services.

Where you might see it as a deluge of AI slop - and I've got no doubt it is - I see the need for whatever part of the govt you're into improve their services.

If the public is annoyed by how your service is being provided and they feel the need to send through AI generated privacy demands, that suggests the department you're in isn't doing a good job relative to your customer's expectations. Something needs to change; maybe have a page that allows people to delete accounts or whatever private information they're ALLOWED to delete, maybe the public needs to feel more reassured that their data is safe, or maybe it's something else.

Whatever the reason, AI has placed pressure on you and your arm of government to meet the expectations of the public, pressure that didn't previously exist.

It was a genuine question because I wasn't really understanding the point of your OP, apologies if it came off snarky.

> By contrast, having zero mechanism for the rest of the parents to control this, as is the current case, does impose your "do whatever feels good" values on the rest of the world.

Parental controls? They take 5mins to setup.

So you think that legal skills / help should remain expensive?

Is it any different to how it was previously? Before the age of AI, companies write all sorts of bullshit stuff into ToS or EULA which was neither enforceable or legal yet they routinely got away with it because Joe Schmoe had no ability to assess their arguments or fight back.

The only difference now is that the general population has gained access to low cost legal help and are able to push and argue (whether rightly or wrongly), previously it was the other way around.

I hope so. I've got no issue with AI, but "influencers" are broadly a net negative on the world. Anything that reduces the amount of power/status/attention they get is a plus for me.

It tells me the way they measure 'livable' is wrong. Given the choice, most people would choose to be in any one of those over where ever they are now, and the cities on 'most livable' lists.

> This is a bit disingenious, note that Buffet did not use leverage...

In a way, but Buffet wasn't making those investments exclusively using his own money. Effectively there's a degree of implied leverage when you get a performance reward from investing other people's money.

Whilst true, that extra 0.5-1 second edge is huge for HFT firms.

They also want to ban 'AI slop' - I'd love to see how they draw the lines on that one.

> LLM as your local tech support works surprisingly well too.

Isn't that partly why I would imagine Linux is better than ever? I'm a relatively technical person compared to some of my peers and without LLMs I just wouldn't have the time to sit and toy around with search up what random errors mean, why things aren't working, why things are crashing, making a forum post and waiting for a response or searching through stack overflow.

But now, it's no longer an issue!

It basically already is if you're not playing live service. Unfortunately I can't see MS ever making their catalogue of games workable with Proton, Riot won't as well since they won't budge on kernel level anti-cheat, and for God knows what reason Epic won't do so either (even though they're always pushing for open platforms???)

Depends on the market. Crypto and prediction markets wont stop.

> What was Microsoft plan to increase profit?

IMO, at the time, it was to buy ABK and make CoD an Xbox exclusive. That clearly didn't play out when everyone screamed about it being (rightly!) anticompetitive, and so they had to resign themselves to accepting that day 1 gamepass exclusive was going to be their way to get people to switch over from PS. That also didn't work.

The 'K' part of ABK was also probably going to be their way to drive mobile into Xbox as well with their 'everything is an Xbox' push at the time.

I'm actually doing something similar, myself, and doing a MSc in CS right now. I'm somewhat jealous of how little group work you had to do! Almost every course I'm going through now has 1-3 group work assignments each.

Often the reason is something like _"that's how it is in the workplace"_ which is a blatant cop out, imo. It's clear the reason that Universities force group work is because it's a cost cutting exercise.

They need to pay the hours for people to mark assignments. Make groups of 2, and you've cut the number of hours that need to be paid by 50%. Make groups of 5, and you've cut the cost by 80%. Of course, this comes at the cost of some students unfairly carrying others.

> That's unfair that the US government gets to stick its grubby fingers into every TLD that isn't a country code.

You're right in a sense, but the US invented the internet, so they get to invent the rules, no?

Definitely not the case with the PS5 version, which I can install and play offline to my heart 's content.