Re: "reviewing code is very different from producing it, and surely teaches you less" - I feel this so much when reviewing the code one of my coworkers writes. My coworker makes plenty of mistakes and I learned the hard way that reviewing his PRs in a web page is not enough. These days when I have to review his code I download his branch locally and load the entire solution in the IDE. I then track his changes and usually find a few things wrong.
BTW - my coworker is not AI. It is a flesh-and-bones SWE.
Google Search used to be awesome, heads, shoulders, belt buckle and knees above everyone else.
Seriously, I still remember the moment I first used Google. I was using Altavista / OpenText and Yahoo now and then. I thought Altavista was the best and OpenText was for geeking out. Once I tried Google I never looked back for decades. Their tech was their moat.
The article starts off explaining the lack of reliable data sets. And most of the stuff in the article was either anecdotal (like some company that took 3 groups of people around Europe looking for places to move, and now projects to have 57 groups) or % stats (which are quite meaningless without the baseline).
Not exactly fake news, but not solid info either...
We will know a lot better in 2030 when we do the census.
That isn't right. It notes the U.S. government doesn't collect comprehensive statistics, then it does a decent job citing many alternative data sources that all point the same way: A Brookings Institution estimate, trends over time from National stats of Portugal, Ireland, France, and some scattered datapoints from Spain, Netherlands, UK, Czech Republic, renunciation of citizenship numbers.
Even if it was purely % stats, you don't need a baseline figure for the claim in the headline (Americans are leaving the US in record numbers) just that the number is going up. There's plenty of solid info that this is a real phenomenon. What's uncertain is the magnitude and significance of it.
They retrofit Yorktown in 3 days instead of 3 months. The Japanese thought Yorktown was a different aircraft carrier-they could not imagine such a fast retrofit.
Your own citation says that the original estimate was at least 2 weeks, and further looks found that important components were undamaged, and most of the damage was easily patchable, like the flight deck and hull. Her damaged boilers were not fully repaired and she was not able to make full speed.
This isn't that abnormal for 20th century warships. They were designed to be mostly flooded and still floating, had significant redundancy, and especially in the USA, massive efforts and training and resources were spent on damage control and management.
The USS New Orleans Cruiser in WW2 had 150ft of it's front entirely blown off by an ammo detonation. One quarter of the ship just gone.
The spent about 11 days on a crippled boat, patching things up and putting out fires, and then she sailed backwards to a friendly port, and was eventually fully refurbished and refit.
This wasn't some era of magical American super productivity. It's what these ships were designed to do in some way. They were built to be hit by rather large weapons after all, and attempt to survive. Look at what efforts it took to finally sink the Bismarck and the Japanese super battleships.
It was 2 days, and they thought it was a different ship because they thought the Yorktown was sunk in the previous battle, not because they didn't think it could be repaired that fast (although that's probably also true).
Not anymore. Today I tried to copy paste a string of 15 ascii characters into an Excel cell. Excel spun around for 20 seconds then blurted out an error that "the data is too big". I hit F2 (enter cell Edit Mode), pasted the 15 characters in the edit window and this was I was able to get the data in the cell.
"You’ve built a generation that can’t extract a zip file without a dedicated app and calls it innovation"
OK, I'll bite - how does anyone extract a zip file with no dedicated app? Does one write their own un-zip app?
Even if they have FSD ready tomorrow the financials would not support this valuation.
Summing the sales figures in [0] we get 9M to 10M Teslas on the road. Let's say 10M and and let's say Tesla will keep selling 1.6M / year for the next 5 years [1]. This is 18M Teslas and let's assume all of them are converted into paying customers at $100 / month [2]. This works out to $21 B / year in income. $22 B / year in income cannot justify $1.5 T in market value.
[2] this is another huge assumption - I know 5 Teslas owners. They tried the $100 / month assisted driving (or whatever Tesla calls it these days). All said it was cool, but not worth it and did not sign up after the trial period. These are professionals who value their time (tech engineers and 1 banker)
One of these videos was referencing a problem with one of the Mars landers. Feynman died in 1988, long before the landers were even on the drawing board.
BTW - my coworker is not AI. It is a flesh-and-bones SWE.
reply