jj4211 @ jj4211 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,763

Joined

2 yr. ago

Of course, that was well below the claimed "magical" 3.5% level.

The cited scenarios were rarely democratic in nature.

Of course, in all the scenarios cited, there was no one telling them "get to 3.5% and things will happen", so with everyone saying "if we get to 3.5%, things will happen", that could itself break the "rule", as a sort of self-denying prophecy.

Further, it happens to hit the magical "3.5%" number everyone was throwing around.

Maybe it's correct and others will vouch for it, analysize, but an estimate that's significantly higher than an already decently high number that bridges the apparent gap to the 3.5% number almost exactly seems too conveniently on point, like someone wanted to stretch the numbers as little as possible while still hitting the designated number.

One thing left unclear is how the determination is made about emergency versus non emergency.

If it's a separate number, ok, seems clear cut enough.

If it's human always answers and if it's some bullshit they just click a button to punt to AI instead of just hanging up, ok.

If they are saying the AI answers and does the triage and hands off immediately to a human when "emergency detected", then I could see how that promise could fail.

To be fair, that article was overall pretty plainly stating that the protests were overwhelmingly more well attended. Yes they had one line that raised the possibility of weather as a factor, but I think anyone but Trump could see the facts as presented in the story telling the real story.

Also went out of their way to characterize the protests as peaceful and the only politicians under violent threat were Democrats, despite the magnitude of protests.

Being able to just cut off access to the application means a customer has little choice.

For a competitor to pass them, they first have to catch up. To catch up, the customer needs to be able to extract the data from the application to give competition a chance. If they get closer to catching up, they tend to be bought out. Lot of speedbumps to discourage competition. Also, to get funding those competitors have to pretty much promise investors they will also do "as a service".

For assets versus expense, I see a pendulum, largely based on how appreciation/depreciation pans out versus acquisition cost and loan interest rates, as well as uncertain start up versus steady business. I'm not sure software is giving enough choice in the matter the let that swing.

While "any" is a bit much, I do anticipate a rather dramatic decline.

One is that there are a large chunk of programming jobs that I do think LLM can displace. Think of those dumb unimaginative mobile games that bleed out a few dollars a week from folks. I think LLM has a good chance at cranking those out. If you've seen companies that have utterly trivial yet somehow subtly unique internal applications, LLMs can probably crank out a lot of those to. There's a lot of stupid trivial stuff that has been done a million times before that still gets done by people.

Another is that a lot of software teams have overhired anyway. Business folk think more developers mean better results, so they want to hire up to success, as long as their funding permits. This isn't how programming really works, but explanations that fewer people can do more than more people in some cases can't crack through how counter-intuitive that is. AI offers a rationalization for a lot of those folks to finally arrive at the efficient conclusion.

Finally, the software industry has significantly converted transactional purchases to subscription. With perpetual license, you needed to provide some value to drive that customer who bought from you 5 years ago a reason to upgrade. Now with subscription models, you just have to coast and keep the lights on for those customers. Often with effective lock-in of the customers data to make it extra hard or impossible for them to jump to a competitor, even if competitors could reverse-engineer your proprietary formats, the customer might not even be able to download their actual data files. So a company that acheived "good enough" with subscription might severely curtail investment because it makes no difference to their bottom line if they are delivering awesome new capability or just same old same old. Anticipate a log of stagnation as they shuffle around things like design language to give a feeling of progress while things just kinda plateau out.

I think AI is a component of the decline.

For decades, companies have operated under the misunderstanding that more software developers equals more success, despite countless works explaining that's not how it works. As a result many of these companies have employed an order of magnitude more than they probably should have and got worse results than they would have. However the fact they got subpar results with 10x a good number just convinced them that they didn't hire enough. Smaller team produce better results made zero sense.

So now the AI companies come along and give a plausible rationalization to decrease team size. Even if the LLM hypothetically does zero to provide direct value, the reduced teams start yielding better results, because of mitigating the problems of "make sure everyone is utilized, make sure these cheap unqualified offshored programmers are giving you value, communicate and plan, reach consensus along a set up people who might all have viable approaches, but devolved into arguments over which way to go".

AI gives then a rationalization to do what they should have done from the onset.

You can use one of a few ways to use the TPM to auto decrypt on boot without passphrase. Systemd cryptenroll is my favorite.

Because it says to do so?

Proxmox uses Debian as the OS and for several scenarios it says do Debian to get that done and just add the proxmox software. It's managing qemu kvm on a deb managed kernel

Significant presence in the Arctic circle which may become more valuable with some climate change and/or closer relationship with Russia.

At least that's what I'd guess. Similar story with Canada, more land to have a better chance to respond to climate change.

I find that a credible thought, though one would imagine an answer to say that they try to have plans for any concevaiable scenario, no matter how unlikely, and have done so for years.

One would imagine if he was good at this politics thing, he would have found an answer to distance such plans from the current contentious situation.

And upon reading, he said precisely that...

I wouldn't be surprised if he's more afraid of an embarassingly small crowd more than protestors.

To be fair they stated they didn't want to have an audience out in lightning.

Whatever the case, calling off such festivities is what I'd like to happen anyway. His stupid birthday parade not happening would be a good outcome.

To be fair they made a lot of strides to the point where config file wrangling went from mandatory to almost never done.

But yes, Nvidia would have quirks driving people back to wrangling config file, but they got better too.

Though I'm not particularly interested in X11. The biggest thing they had was trivial application forwarding, but the architecture didn't scale well to modern resolutions and UI design that was largely bitmaps being pushed, as well as not handling higher latency networks too well.

Put them on a board for people using a thumbtack.

To your point, at least for third party voters, only two states had enough third party participation to even theoretically move the end result: Michigan and Wisconsin. So even if every person that voted third party instead voted for Harris, she would have still lost 287:251 (though she would have won the symbolic victory of popular vote).

Of course, there's more than just a single election in the country, so more important to keep active in down ballot races.

The biggest potential complaint of consequence would be non-voters/people who boycotted the election, but no way of knowing anything about it.

Still it is utterly obnoxious when someone seems to act all high and mighty that they didn't vote for the lesser of two evils.

To be fair, a decent chunk of coding is stupid boilerplate/minutia that varies environment to environment, language to language, library to library.

So LLM can do some code completion, filling out a bunch of boilerplate that is blatantly obvious, generating the redundant text mandated by certain patterns, and keeping straight details between languages like "does this language want join as a method on a list with a string argument, or vice versa?"

Problem is this can be sometimes more annoying than it's worth, as miscompletions are annoying.

GPTs which claim to use a stockfish API

Then the actual chess isn't LLM. If you are going stockfish, then the LLM doesn't add anything, stockfish is doing everything.

The whole point is the marketing rage is that LLMs can do all kinds of stuff, doubling down on this with the branding of some approaches as "reasoning" models, which are roughly "similar to 'pre-reasoning', but forcing use of more tokens on disposable intermediate generation steps". With this facet of LLM marketing, the promise would be that the LLM can "reason" itself through a chess game without particular enablement. In practice, people trying to feed in gobs of chess data to an LLM end up with an LLM that doesn't even comply to the rules of the game, let alone provide reasonable competitive responses to an oppone.

I'm so glad that the one that did win ended the genocide, got us universal healthcare, and decreased military spending... oh wait....