No, AI results can be quite good, especially if your internal documentation is poor and disorganised. Fundamentally you cannot trust it, but in software we have the luxury of being able to check solutions cheaply (usually).
Our internal search at work is dogshit, but the internal LLM can turn up things quicker. Do I wish they’d improve the internal search? Yes. Am I going to make that my problem by continuing to use a slower tool? No.
I don’t see any of those objections as being substantive to the point that Labour is making positive changes.
Your point about inflation is not exactly wrong, but calling 3.5% inflation “rampant” is overblown. How exactly could the government have changed this? You want them to have been investing and spending more, which is inflationary.
You then make some points some of which I certainly agree are wrong, but don’t really stick to the point: if your party is in power and does something you disagree with, do you shout about it, harming your party, or put up with it as a cost of being in power? Merely emphasising that you disagree with those actions is beside the point because I’m not saying I agree with them.
I think there has been meaningful change.
Do you see the Tories having done any of these things?
If I may take the liberty of guessing, I think when you say “nothing has changed” you mean shit is still expensive. And it is. But that was never going to change, not in this timeframe. Nothing the government was going to do would have led to deflation (which is pretty catastrophic in any case). The only way to fix that was to have a responsible economic policy (what that looks like, exactly, is up for debate), stick to it, and wait.
There wasn’t much in the manifesto about about infrastructure investment, because they didn’t think there was room within their economic plan: taxes are high, inflation was (somewhat) high, debt and debt interest was already high. And sure you can have the debate about whether that really constrains the economy, but that was always the line they went with, and people voted for that plan.
Where responsibility lies with the labour left is their inability to rally around a leader not of their stripe, suck it up, compromise and take the win. Constantly moaning about how awful their own party is doesn’t really increase the chance that they get a left-wing labour government next time. That persistent habit is a major contributor to why the country elects more Tory governments than Labour ones.
There are plenty of open plan offices with no natural light either - it’s really a function of how big the floor is whether light can reach to the middle of it (without a lightwell or something)
Gotta hand it to labour left, they really helped make people dislike Starmer!
Well you can crunch the numbers on that. The UK is not like the US - it’s not trying to prop up dirty industries for the sake of it. The only reason other than environmental or economic that I can think of that would factor in here is the number of jobs at stake.
I suspect buying wood pellets is fairly cheap and the capital costs, and costs of finance, therefore weigh more heavily.
Of course it may also be that the UK government didn’t understand the true emissions, since it’s still not a completely understood area even today. A report I read suggested there was going to be a limit on the emissions associated with harvesting and transporting wood used for power generation, but I then couldn’t find out whether it got implemented.
I call boilerplate having to repeat types because there’s no type inference, but this is not captured here.
Kolmogorov complexity would be a good denominator, but you’d end up with a higher boilerplate score if your language just uses longer keywords
Because the Drax power station already exists, and the wind and solar power you’re talking about doesn’t. The UK is already building new wind and solar at a very high rate, so it’s not even clear that you could speed this up to compensate for the loss of 6% of the electricity supply.
Do they think valve’s lawyers are not as good as Nintendo’s or something?
I understood that so I guess it was my joke that didn’t land 😅
Government can disincentivise this or just expropriate banked land.
Last I read though, land banking isn’t as big of a problem as it’s made out to be, and is mostly just builders having a pipeline of projects, and buying the land for projects when it’s cheapest rather than the day before the spades are ready.
A land value tax should sort it out though.
You could try a fancy dinner for less. You might be too full/drunk after to be worrying about enhancing injections, which could be good or bad…
Is he related to Tifa Lockhart?
Depends though. If they think they’re guilty but that it’ll be impractical to prove it if they delay the case in court for one to two business centuries, they’ll do it
I also want to stop the boats and the exploitative gangs doing this, but any approach that isn’t opening up safe and legal routes for applications to be made is just advocating for everyone else to bear the burden of global instability the UK played a disproportionate role in creating.
Safe, legal routes are key, but are also a way to do the opposite of having “everyone else […] bear the burden”, because in a world where refugees are not seen as a global problem to be handled multilaterally to ensure the burden is shared, making it easier to claim asylum means you’ll receive a higher share.
This can end up with people talking at cross-purposes because in any disagreement there can be a reluctance to address the numbers: what level of immigration is the right one? We need to balance
So what rate will balance those three things? I dunno, but looking at how migration has changed over the last few decades, it’s not surprising that we are seeing a lot more annoyance under the third item.
the UK played a disproportionate role in creating.
I don’t think this kind of thinking is very productive though. Maybe the UK as a country does bear some responsibility, but whether it is disproportionate is hard-to-impossible to quantify. Most small boat arrivals over the past few years are from Iran. Should UK citizens now be considered responsible for the actions of our government over 70 years ago? For a counter-coup that could never have been foreseen? Or should radical repressive Islamists bear more of that responsibility?
The next largest contingent is Afghanistan - but the UK went into Afghanistan with as part of a large multi-national coalition, so just what proportion of the responsibility is ours?
The next largest is Iraq - where we certainly bear a higher portion of the blame.
Then comes Albania - I don’t know anything we’ve done to fuck them up. (Arrivals from Albania are now very low)
Next comes Syria - again I don’t believe Britain has any responsibility for the situation there.
But if we are to incorporate this thinking into policy, it can’t come as some kind of thought-terminator, “we did bad things in the world, so we have to be punished, so we must take whatever.” We need to have at least a rough idea of which countries we have adversely affected, how significantly, and therefore roughly how many people that means we ought to take as some kind of reparation.
Otherwise, it’s a non-starter; it wouldn’t provide any practical guidance, so it would be little more than virtue signalling.
Why would it be soldered? It’s not like it’s in a laptop with space constraints.
Wrong community
Using your dominance in one market to gain advantage in another market is anti-competitive. I don’t think it’s cut-and-dry but I think there’s a good argument that they’re using their dominance in games distribution to gain an advantage in microtransaction handling.
I think Google (and Apple) using their app-delivery dominance to force app-makers to pay them a fee for in-app purchases is definitely bullshit. Consumers’ options are more limited there, but that just means the market dominance is greater: the same argument applies in the case of Steam and the question is just how dominant something has to be for this to be a problem.
Something that you can’t trust can be good if it is possible to verify without significant penalties, as long as its accuracy is sufficiently high.
In my country, you would never just trust the weather forecast if your life depended on it not raining: if you book an open-air event more than a week in advance, the plan cannot rely on the weather being fair, because the long-range forecast is not that reliable. But this is OK if the cost of inaccuracy is that you take an umbrella with you, or change plans last-minute and stay in. It’s not OK you don’t have an umbrella, or staying in would cost you dearly.
In software development, if you ask a question like, “how do I fix this error message from the CI system”, and it comes back with some answer, you can just try it out. If it doesn’t work, oh well, you wasted a few minutes of your time and some minutes on the CI nodes. If it does, hurrah!
Given that, in practice the alternative is often spending hours digging through internal posts, messaging other people (disrupting their time) who don’t know the answer, only to end up with a hack workaround, this is actually well worth a go - at my place of work. In fact, let’s compare the AI process to the internal search one - I search for the error message and the top 5 results are all completely unrelated. This isn’t much different to the AI returning a hallucinated solution - the difference is that to check the hallucinated solution, I have to run the command it gives (or whatever), whereas to check the search results, I have to read the posts. There is a higher time cost to checking the AI solution - it probably only takes 30 seconds to click a link, load the page, and read enough of it to see it’s wrong. Whereas the hallucinated solution, as I said, will take a few minutes (of my time actually typing commands, watching it run, looking at results - not waiting for CI to complete which I can spend doing something else). So that is, roughly, the ratio for how much better the LLM needs to be than search (in terms of % good results).
Like I said, I wish that the state of our internal search and internal documentation were better, but it ain’t.