Every industry has an accessibility crisis. Lazy MBAs don’t want to sell products that appeal to everyone if they can sell products that only appeal to rich people with less effort.

If you have watched the Mets this year, you would understand.

I’ve given up on baseball for the time being.

Why yes, I am a Mets fan, what gave it away?

Wait, they’re going after the NFL, too?

What is the Pope is a Bears fan?

The key thing for elections is that all counts ought to be auditable and verifiable. It doesn’t matter whether the count is done by humans or electronically. Enough information from each individual vote must be preserved so that counts can be verified, during the legal window for races to be confirmed.

I am old enough that when I first started voting, we used lever machines. You pushed a lever for your choice in each race, then you pushed a big lever, which “recorded” your choice and resets all levers for the next person. But, it recorded your choice on manual dials that showed the vote total. Sometimes, the dial has issues rolling over from “9” to “10”, or “9999” to “10000”. If your vote got swallowed by the mechanical dial, it’s gone! There was no remedy. At the end of the election, the poll workers reported the counts off the dials. If they needed a recount, they looked at the dials and said “Yup, that’s the count”.

Today, I vote on a paper ballot, which gets fed into a machine. I can see right away if my vote is accepted – if it is not, I can get a new ballot and try again. All those paper ballots are retained so if there is a recount, they can either be run again or physically inspected by hand. It is much better tha it used to be.

The videos are never associated with a user’s identity and are deleted after the verification process. Audio is never recorded.

I actually believe them. It’s gonna start out this way. But in a year or two, they’ll quietly slip in a provision stating they will hold on to the images for a short time for security purposes, then they will say that they will associate your image with your identity to make it more secure, then Google’s AI will know everything about everyone (and sell the info to the highest bidder)

Lol, good one, who actually thinks AI companies are profitable?

Exactly. My terminology might not be correct, but my point is that their books can be perfectly balanced, and they can also be losing a shit-ton of money, as long as investors keep shoveling money in.

I’m not an accountant, but you can certainly balance books while showing a loss. Double-entry bookkeeping simply means that every transaction has two parts, and “balancing” simply means that all the transactions cancel out properly.

I joke with my accountant friends that their entire job is counting to zero.

That’s quite easy, the books are balanced, there are just more debits than credits. “Balancing the books” doesn’t mean that the net result is zero, it means that all the money going in and going out is accounted for.

OpenAI can keep bleeding money as long as there are fools willing to fund it in exchange for the illusion of future profits.

In German, wouldn’t that all be one word?

They didn’t reject adding SpaceX, they simply said they would not change the rules to add it early, like the other indexes are. Those rules include a minimum time listed as a public company, a certain percentage of shares being floated to the public, and some profitability. I doubt SpaceX ever gets there.

Some of those other AI companies might make it through the gauntlet, though, and be listed eventually.

Note = loan in this context. OP is saying he doesn’t want the burden of a monthly payment on a new car, and would rather buy a cheaper car that he doesn’t need to borrow for. (Although these are becoming harder to find, at least in the US…)

How many AI datacenters will it take to boil the ocean?

I won’t even get contact lenses, I ain’t letting them putting a chip in my brain.

So, now, when I see senior developers (which I am not) vibe code green field projects, I am just astounded as to how they manage the architecture + understanding + optimization + maintenance context.

My experience is, they’re not. Like the article says they are just focused on MOAR and not on the quality of the output. It may take years for the unmaintainable code to cause problems, and they may have already been laid off by the time that happens, anyway .

I don’t write much code anymore, but when I did, there was a fair amount of embedded code, where fixing a bug is more costly than just pushing out a build to a production server. I actively sought out automation back then, but the purpose of the automation was to help cover edge cases and better test the embedded code for flaws that traced through multiple layers of code.

Whenever I start a new software project, it usually starts with a short period of experimentation when I try out several things. Then, I coalesce on an architecture in my head (and eventually document it), and once I do that I can add more structure to the code.

Given the state of the AI tools today, I can see myself using them to accelerate all the little fiddly parts of this (especially if I can give it a coding standard and have it stick to it). But I wouldn’t trust it more than that. I would always keep the archictecture separate, because I don’t trust the AI tools to change it on me for no good reason.