I've found that as an ambient code completion facility it's... interesting, but I don't know if it's useful or not...
So on average, it's totally wrong about 80% of the time, 19% of the time the first line or two is useful (either correct or close enough to fix), and 1% of the time it seems to actually fill in a substantial portion in a roughly acceptable way.
It's exceedingly frustrating and annoying, but not sure I can call it a net loss in time.
So reviewing the proposal for relevance and cut off and edits adds time to my workflow. Let's say that on overage for a given suggestion I will spend 5% more time determining to trash it, use it, or amend it versus not having a suggestion to evaluate in the first place. If the 20% useful time is 500% faster for those scenarios, then I come out ahead overall, though I'm annoyed 80% of the time. My guess as to whether the suggestion is even worth looking at improves, if I'm filling in a pretty boilerplate thing (e.g. taking some variables and starting to write out argument parsing), then it has a high chance of a substantial match. If I'm doing something even vaguely esoteric, I just ignore the suggestions popping up.
However, the 20% is a problem still since I'm maybe too lazy and complacent and spending the 100 milliseconds glancing at one word that looks right in review will sometimes fail me compared to spending 2-3 seconds having to type that same word out by hand.
That 20% success rate allowing for me to fix it up and dispose of most of it works for code completion, but prompt driven tasks seem to be so much worse for me that it is hard to imagine it to be better than the trouble it brings.
As someone who tries to keep the vague number in mind, it would be strange to me as well, but I suspect a large number of people don't really try to keep even the vague numbers in mind about how many people are about or how many people realistically could reside in a place like NYC.
They track the rough oversimplifications. Like "barely anyone lives in the middle of the country", and every TV show they see in the US either has a bunch of background people in NYC or LA, or is in the middle of nowhere with a town seemingly made up of mere dozens of people. They might know that "millions" live in the US and also, "millions" live in NYC, so same "ballpark" if they aren't keeping track of the specifics. They'd probably believe 10 million in NYC and 50 million nationwide.
This is presuming they bother to follow through on the specific math rather than merely roughly throwing out a percentage.
One thing I wonder is how seriously people take the flood warnings.
Most of the time if it is raining at all, I get the various flood warnings. I could imagine people underestimating those.
I recall quite a bit being made of how overtly grim, specific, and certain the Katrina warning was and how that may have helped set it apart from the usual "warning"
Well, that is pretty much how television seems to think things are...
I always thought it was weird how in so many shows that are targeted to a nationwide audience how often they seem to just assume some specific subway thing in NYC is something that their audience will instantly get and relate to.
I'm extremely skeptical of any organized religion, where divine authority is asserted for the words said/written by some dudes, but I'm not going to close the door on something beyond what we can know.
But no one's guess carries any more weight than another, no person should be assumed to have an inherently more valid relationship with divinity than another.
So I have a bit of a vague faith, but not in any concrete concepts put forth by religion, since I have no reason to think their guess would be any better than a guess I could make on my own, and someone's ability to think otherwise seems a very dangerous reality.
It's not anything actionable, just more a hope that there's more to things than we see.
To be fair, the information they have access to suggests a much more diverse situation than reality. So it's understandable to be reluctant to recognize that any group might dominate the majority so much or that a well recognized minority population is actually so small. You'd have to study up the specific numbers, which are usually less important to keep track of than the relative subjective realitiies associated with each group.
It is well known that if you are a being with access to all of time and space in your bigger-on-the-inside ship you will suspiciously hang out a lot in current day London.
If giving 110% is good, then giving over 148% is even better.
But I can believe it, it's not like they asked people to enumerate all at once, they presumably asked one at a time to estimate, and it's not like they are likely to try to reconcile those guesses with each other even if made in one sitting.
I think total cost of ownership is lower for EVs for people that have reasonable electricity rates and can charge at home, but that's a tougher sell and most people aren't even sure that it will work out unless they try it.
I've found that as an ambient code completion facility it's... interesting, but I don't know if it's useful or not...
So on average, it's totally wrong about 80% of the time, 19% of the time the first line or two is useful (either correct or close enough to fix), and 1% of the time it seems to actually fill in a substantial portion in a roughly acceptable way.
It's exceedingly frustrating and annoying, but not sure I can call it a net loss in time.
So reviewing the proposal for relevance and cut off and edits adds time to my workflow. Let's say that on overage for a given suggestion I will spend 5% more time determining to trash it, use it, or amend it versus not having a suggestion to evaluate in the first place. If the 20% useful time is 500% faster for those scenarios, then I come out ahead overall, though I'm annoyed 80% of the time. My guess as to whether the suggestion is even worth looking at improves, if I'm filling in a pretty boilerplate thing (e.g. taking some variables and starting to write out argument parsing), then it has a high chance of a substantial match. If I'm doing something even vaguely esoteric, I just ignore the suggestions popping up.
However, the 20% is a problem still since I'm maybe too lazy and complacent and spending the 100 milliseconds glancing at one word that looks right in review will sometimes fail me compared to spending 2-3 seconds having to type that same word out by hand.
That 20% success rate allowing for me to fix it up and dispose of most of it works for code completion, but prompt driven tasks seem to be so much worse for me that it is hard to imagine it to be better than the trouble it brings.