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.
Note this experience is specific to the US and Western Europe. A great deal of relief and prosperity. Things get more complicated for the former Soviet centered world as they tried to navigate the new situation
Putin came to power basically because post soviet Russia failed to reach the sort of prosperity they hoped for.
He mentions creating more problems than we’ve solved, which like you I disagree, but on the other hand he asked if the world was, presumably on average, “happier”.
I think that could be a tougher call. On the one hand, the average life experience is by any rational consideration better now, but as communication has advanced now everyone gets to know about the most miserable news that they would have previously been completely oblivious to.
So while atrocities always were happening, 50 miles away people would have no idea. Now any such event on the other side of the world has instant awareness.
So we get exposed to harsh realities constantly and if we have any shred of empathy we get burdened with that. Those realities may be smaller compared to the population than before, but their emotional impact is far broader.
That seems a good take if the show runners were making the call, but it sounds like it’s not their call.
Also maybe if the viewership declined, but now is an odd time since they haven’t had new releases to gauge viewership.
Sounds like either they have some other shiny things to direct money to or are suffering from lack of subscribers, perhaps in part due to not having a whole lot of new popular content.
Put them on a board for people using a thumbtack.
As bad as his victory was, it wasn’t even vaguely questionable.
Of the people that turned out, more of them voted for Trump, plain and simple, even by the popular vote without having to complain about the electoral college.
The only objective fact that gives an asterisk is he didn’t manage to get over 50% of the popular vote, but he still had the most of any candidate.
I’ve seen the mentions of “inconsistencies” and “Musk manipulated the votes” but a read of them seems about as credible as 2020 election denials.
I’d say that those details that vary tend not to vary within a language and ecosystem, so a fairly dumb correlative relationship is enough to generally be fine. There’s no way to use logic to infer that it’s obvious that in language X you need to do mylist.join(string) but in language Y you need to do string.join(mylist), but it’s super easy to recognize tokens that suggest those things and a correlation to the vocabulary that matches the context.
Rinse and repeat for things like do I need to specify type and what is the vocabulary for the best type for a numeric value, This variable that makes sense is missing a declaration, does this look to actually be a new distinct variable or just a typo of one that was declared.
But again, I’m thinking mostly in what kind of sort of can work, my experience personally is that it’s wrong so often as to be annoying and get in the way of more traditional completion behaviors that play it safe, though with less help particularly for languages like python or javascript.
Fine, a chess engine that is capable of running with affordable even for the time 1970s electronics will best what marketing folks would have you think is an arbitrarily capable “reasoning” model running on top of the line 2025 hardware.
You can split hairs about “well actually, the 2600 is hardware and a chess engine is the software” but everyone gets the point.
As to assertions that no one should expect an LLM to be a chess engine, well tell that to the industry that is asserting the LLMs are now “reasoning” and provides a basis to replace most of the labor pool. We need stories like this to calibrate expectations in a way common people can understand…
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.
My understanding is that the train system and automotive sector are kind of opposite.
For automotive, the government does the roads and private industry does the vehicles.
Conversely, the rails are largely private industry excluding Amtrak, and Amtrak is mostly responsible for the trains with their government granted monopoly on passenger rail.
It’s part of what really limits passenger rail, the companies that own the rail mostly want to rail from places like ports, and negligible value for rail between population centers. Also Amtrak has to suck it up if a rail is busy (wasnt supposed to be the case, but cargo operators were allowed to make trains too long to fit on bypass spurs so they can’t get out of the way like they were legally required to).