SQL generation has gotten very good, and most of the problems listed are no longer as big of a problem. addressing schema rot was always a tedious chore, but now is easily ameliorated by delegating to coding agents. Drifting definitions are solved by giving the agents access to the pipeline code.
However, in my experience the answer a business user needs is rarely the answer to the question they initially ask. Asking for clarification, pushing back on poorly framed or conceived asks where most of the value comes from. LLMs are still too eager to jump into the code, and the sycophancy problem is especially challenging in this space.
But why would a business want to have it's internal communications be on a platform like signal? none of the privacy features feel relevant to work related communications, if anything I think a company needs the ability to see all communications on platforms it uses for audit ability, collaboration, etc
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the advantage of decentralization and cryptographically signed events in the context of a work chat/ coordination tool? Could a company not accomplish the same goal self hosting something like zulip?
Partially. They're called rabbits[1] (or pacers) whose official role is to run a specific pace, who help encourage a fast race overall rather than a slow buildup with a fast kick.
Isn't the problem also that because of radiation, processors in space either need to have larger feature sizes OR additional shielding / redundancy? Seems like a pretty high price to pay for slightly cheaper energy...
Has anyone received any proactive communication about this? I didn't see the email until about 9 hours after it was sent out, yet I still needed to seek out information as to a) whether this was real or phishing and b) whether the amount was correct.
Seems totally irresponsible not to send an immediate follow up email to make customers aware.
I think the real question is, if the big tech companies are so all knowing and all powerful, with so much control over media and messaging, then why is their PR so bad?
For one, compliance is compliance. For another, "You only need them if you're using them for something like tracking." yeah, sites want to track user behavior and the eu said if you want to do that you gotta have a banner. How is that "malicious"? Seems like the eu got exactly what they wanted?
> Observation: it is legal to listen to a conversation happening in public, and it is not typically legal to record it.
That doesn't seem accurate. Do you have an example of a law that prohibits filming on public property? Isn't the legality the whole premise of what those weirdo "first amendment auditors" on YouTube do?
Tbh it feels quite performative, giving an air of rigor to the what often feels like post hoc reasoning and selective application of precidence and case law...
However, in my experience the answer a business user needs is rarely the answer to the question they initially ask. Asking for clarification, pushing back on poorly framed or conceived asks where most of the value comes from. LLMs are still too eager to jump into the code, and the sycophancy problem is especially challenging in this space.