I work alone (in a medium sized company). No peers, no code review. AI code review is invaluable.
AI is a mixed bag. I'm the type of person who is compelled to have a deep understanding of the code they write. Writing my own code vs fixing AI-generated code is a wash timewise, and the AI generated code is so limited (assuming you pared down the uselessly elaborate code and fixed all the critical runtime bugs) as to restrict further iterations. And I'm talking about uploading an architectural blueprint with every function a documented but otherwise empty stub.
AI is a great bellwether. I bounce ideas off AI for a consensus. The closest equivalent is reading StackOverflow comments. I once offhandedly complained that python had no equivalent for setattr at class scope (as __class__ is not defined until after __new__), but AI showed me how to provide a closure in __prepare__ over the class namespace, which was introduced in 3.3 (?) and to which I paid little attention. What a gem.
AI is great for learning. If you follow a textbook or blog or paper and don't understand, AI can clarify. But be careful with less structured learning - it is important to build a full mental model accounting for every possible outcome and explanation, otherwise you're susceptible to hallucinations. I remember my first derivative in which the end result could be obtained via two separate proofs, one of which would imply an incorrect calculus. You've got to play with it until you're satisfied your mental model accounts for all the facts.
Because AI facilitates learning so easily I feel the best skills for a future generation are those pertaining to memory and retention. Ya know, assuming we don't develop individualized and personalized AI that can model your next word and act as a personal memex.
AI is great as a search assistant. I have much better recall when rereading content. Thus, I prefer to ask AI to search for links to content I vaguely recall, rather than ask AI for it's own summary or recollection.
Despite being terrible at writing decent code, AI provides fantastic code review. It catches everything from subtle high-level errors - even potential errors that haven't yet occured - to api mismatches to syntax errors. I actually wish I was as fluent at namespaces and cgroups as AI, and I'm well versed.
AI is interesting at comments. It can be hard to provide germane comments while wading through the weeds. I feel the best comments are written a few days after the code is complete. AI provides that fresh perspective instantly. And if AI can't understand your code, you had better improve your comments.
I'm about to try AI for unit tests. I prefer hypothesis tests. I took a quick glance at the generated code, and it seemed overly complicated. So I'm not optimistic.
Outside of software, AI is great for things you don't really care about. Yeah it might hallucinate, but my back-and-forth with AI is more about holding up a mirror to myself, revealing inner biases. Especially useful for interior decoration / remodeling.
Of course, take everything I said with a grain of salt as security at my company actively discourages AI. So, everything I said applies to free/cheap plans only. And I haven't tried skills yet.
The key used to encrypt traffic is in the URL, everything including path is encrypted from client to the onion service end. What you are saying is true for non-onion HTTP sites, not for onions.
side note: there is a built in flag mechanism called BadExit for Tor that if a relay or exit is detected to be malicious, it is quickly removed from being used.
"The NTSB will retain far more employees than during prior shutdowns when it had to furlough 90% or more of its workers. In 2019, the agency did not send investigators to 22 accidents because of the funding lapse. But it made the case to White House budget officials that it needed more personnel for critical functions."
This reminds me - I've been looking for an app, website or tool that can predict or visualize the location of any satellite up to a week out. Most softwares show only the intersection times of predicted orbits with fixed locations on earth, i.e. for telescope visibility.
Unless it's a really old SSD, lifetime is so massively extended over 15+ old SSDs, that it's not even a consideration any more. People use consumer grade SSDs for databases which last years, even when mostly full.
I expect many of the servers I have deployed, again consumer grade SSDs, would have more writes in a day than you in a year -- even with several suspends a day.
I cannot of course address the specific model you have, or the size of RAM you're suspending to swap space.
There’s also the fact that some laptops have laughably slow SSDs. I’m thinking my 2020 HP elitebook whose nvme drive is basically always slower than my 2012 sata drives… it takes forever to write the 32 GB of ram to it. It’s actually a better experience tu turn it completely off and on, unless there’s something I absolutely need to keep in its current state.
which sectors would that be? not the tech sector, not the oil sector, not the car sector. i see companies buying up properties in real state, i hear about companies buying up retirement homes (or some other kind of care facilities). retail? online retail? fast food? processed food, everywhere i see massive dominating brands. music labels? movies are consolidating in major studios. although they recently got some new players with netfix, apple and amazon. but those are still dominating companies.
It is clear that no matter which examples I would give you, you would not acknowledge that there are any sectors with competition. Anybody can look at any sector of their interest and see that there is competition, and it is trivially easy to do so. Including in the sectors you gave as examples. If you don't believe there is competition within fast food, then please list all the fast food companies in your country below.
i am not denying that there is competition. the problem is that you reject that there is an incentive to centralize. if that was true, then none of the consolidations we have seen would have happened.
Yes, there are incentives to centralize. But since customers are such an incredibly diverse group, it will be very difficult to make any huge centralization unless one company delivers an incredibly good product for a very good price, which also satisfies creators. And if that happens, then great.
it will be very difficult to make any huge centralization unless one company delivers an incredibly good product for a very good price, which also satisfies creators.
not true. all they need to do is to buy up their competitors if they have any and remove them from the market, so that you end up with no choice. or take microsoft. they never had any competitors for a long time, and they defend their marketshare with all tricks they can think of.
here are just a few articles about this issue. they focus on tech companies, but the same is happening in every industry:
It was as I said. You would never acknowledge that competition exists or has at any time existed within any sector. So to keep arguing against you is like arguing against somebody who claims that everybody in town wears a hat.
You're only doing yourself a disservice by refusing to acknowledge reality, when it's right in front of your face.
i do acknowledge that competition exists, but i also argue that this is being overshadowed by big companies who may compete amongst themselves but use their power to prevent competition by smaller companies.
you seem to say it doesn't matter, people wouldn't buy from big companies if their products weren't good. and i disagree with that. people buy from big companies because they are cheaper, because their marketing is overwhelming, and because they are lured with free products that small companies can't afford to offer. creators are forced to be on youtube because the audience is on youtube. competition exists, but it doesn't matter. same goes for publishing books on amazon. i know one author who stated that he can't afford not to be exclusive on amazon because it would significantly reduce his revenue.
besides a few exceptions, small companies can not compete against big ones. it is not a fair playing field.
and i really don't understand why you keep arguing about competition, and claim that i don't acknowledge that competition exists. i didn't make such a claim.
the thing i am claiming is that competition does not counteract centralization.
Ah, finally an acknowledgement that the melting 12VHPWR connectors short-circuiting Nvidia's top-of-the-line hardware, the RTX 4090 and 5090, may finally have economic ramifications. Heh.
AI is a mixed bag. I'm the type of person who is compelled to have a deep understanding of the code they write. Writing my own code vs fixing AI-generated code is a wash timewise, and the AI generated code is so limited (assuming you pared down the uselessly elaborate code and fixed all the critical runtime bugs) as to restrict further iterations. And I'm talking about uploading an architectural blueprint with every function a documented but otherwise empty stub.
AI is a great bellwether. I bounce ideas off AI for a consensus. The closest equivalent is reading StackOverflow comments. I once offhandedly complained that python had no equivalent for setattr at class scope (as __class__ is not defined until after __new__), but AI showed me how to provide a closure in __prepare__ over the class namespace, which was introduced in 3.3 (?) and to which I paid little attention. What a gem.
AI is great for learning. If you follow a textbook or blog or paper and don't understand, AI can clarify. But be careful with less structured learning - it is important to build a full mental model accounting for every possible outcome and explanation, otherwise you're susceptible to hallucinations. I remember my first derivative in which the end result could be obtained via two separate proofs, one of which would imply an incorrect calculus. You've got to play with it until you're satisfied your mental model accounts for all the facts.
Because AI facilitates learning so easily I feel the best skills for a future generation are those pertaining to memory and retention. Ya know, assuming we don't develop individualized and personalized AI that can model your next word and act as a personal memex.
AI is great as a search assistant. I have much better recall when rereading content. Thus, I prefer to ask AI to search for links to content I vaguely recall, rather than ask AI for it's own summary or recollection.
Despite being terrible at writing decent code, AI provides fantastic code review. It catches everything from subtle high-level errors - even potential errors that haven't yet occured - to api mismatches to syntax errors. I actually wish I was as fluent at namespaces and cgroups as AI, and I'm well versed.
AI is interesting at comments. It can be hard to provide germane comments while wading through the weeds. I feel the best comments are written a few days after the code is complete. AI provides that fresh perspective instantly. And if AI can't understand your code, you had better improve your comments.
I'm about to try AI for unit tests. I prefer hypothesis tests. I took a quick glance at the generated code, and it seemed overly complicated. So I'm not optimistic.
Outside of software, AI is great for things you don't really care about. Yeah it might hallucinate, but my back-and-forth with AI is more about holding up a mirror to myself, revealing inner biases. Especially useful for interior decoration / remodeling.
Of course, take everything I said with a grain of salt as security at my company actively discourages AI. So, everything I said applies to free/cheap plans only. And I haven't tried skills yet.