> Mozilla exists because one company tried to own the front door to the web, and an open community rose up to make sure it never could.
I'd say that the front door to the web is pretty much owned by Google and Apple at this point given Firefox current marketshare. And maybe that's enough, maybe a future where a low percentage of open models keep the rest of the system honest but that doesn't seem the argument of this article
> ...and it's rebuked by Maynard Keynes: "We're all dead in the long run".
Keynes said that when somebody complained that his theories didn't work in the long run. And the true rebuke is, we're now in the long run and Keynes is dead
> A model can generate a login system in seconds. It will not ask if emails must be unique. That single missing requirement can collapse the system. LLMs cannot see the category of questions that keep software safe.
really? I am assuming here that the author means that the emails used when registering across users need to be unique. even mediocre models will do that for you.
even more to the point though, if you tell an LLM, hey I want to build this system, let's talk about the architecture, it will ask you all the relevant questions. this can really help with the engineering. sure, there's a rubber ducking aspect to it, but even so. telling an LLM to immediately implement an idea does not lead to great engineering. starting to code yourself has the same problem. doing some brainstorming with an LLM (like in the olden days with humans) is where they help with the engineering part.
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass! Who's been pinching my beer?
The counter argument (not mine): Software Engineers are willing to spend their own money on AI. The same people that wouldn't pay 10 dollars for code if there was a workaround that took hours.
Austerity does not create fascism. The examples in the article are just all wrong. Even if you call Trump and Orban fascists, they did not follow austerity. The reaction to the financial crisis was the largest fiscal and monetary interventions in history. Orban consolidated power by spending and state expansion, not austerity. True austerity in Greece, Spain, Portugal of recent times led to new parties, but those countries are politically doing surprisingly well.
Employers and landlords do that sort of thing all the time. Rent goes up, job descriptions change, return to office is suddenly required. And yeah, you can get a different job or a different home if you don't like it.
> if you exclude the enslaved, the south had a higher GDP per capita than the north.
In other words, if you remove the people that earned the least (close to nothing) the overall income per capita goes up? If you exclude the non nobles I am sure the middle ages had a very high GDP too
ah, but you can always just ask the LLM questions about how it works. it's much easier to understand complex code these days than before. and also much easier to not take the time to do it and just race to the next feature
I have looked but I can't find out if it actually means something. Does 89 seconds before midnight mean we have a 50% chance to survive the next N years somehow?
this is cool. not sure it is the first claude code style coding agent that runs against Ollama models though. goose, opencode and others have been able to do that a while no?
One thing that seems missing from a lot of these comparisons is the base rate of success for dieting itself.
Most people who “start a diet” never meaningfully lose weight in the first place, or lose a small amount and plateau quickly. The cohort of “dieters who regain weight” is already heavily filtered toward the minority who were unusually successful at dieting to begin with. That selection bias matters a lot when you then compare regain rates.
GLP-1s change that denominator. A much larger fraction of people who start the intervention actually lose substantial weight. So even if regain after stopping is faster conditional on having lost weight, the overall success rate (people who lose and keep off a clinically meaningful amount) may still be higher than dieting alone.
In other words: “people who regain weight after stopping GLP-1s” vs “people who regain weight after dieting” ignores the much larger group of dieters who never lost anything to regain. From a population perspective, that’s a pretty important omission.