It can absolutely be both though. He knows his reputation, and it’s a performance to add to it, but it’s not exactly harmful or anything.

Ideally, yes.

In practice, if investors think the stock price will be higher in the future, they buy.

Dividends are such a tiny amount compared to the value of the share, that in reality it’s all just speculation on how people are going to speculate.

I think it’s more of a “how you use it” thing, but you’re definitely right that AI agents can’t design systems properly.

Some people I know have produced way more code, removed tech debt, and all without introducing any bugs since they started using AI. That’s because they’re not using it to do anything beyond their skillset, understand everything it’s doing, and are using it to catch mistakes they otherwise would have made. Other people are using it without reviewing the output, or are using it to try and do things beyond their skillset, and that’s how you end up with infinite tech debt and a whole host of bugs.

Personally I’ve recently started heavily using the AI code review bot we have at our company, both for my own code and other people’s. While 50% of what it says is hallucination or wrong, that’s not an issue because I know it’s wrong or a hallucination so can just tell it no and to focus on other things, like catching bugs or issues that most reviewers would just glance past, and also gives you a rubber duck that talks back.

Same in English…

Can’t, won’t, you’dn’t’ve, and if we get into dialects then you get things like owt (anything), nowt (nothing), ont (on the) and int (in the).

I mean it’s also kind of true though…

AI is taking some jobs, in situations where the limiting factor is the rate at which work can be done rather than the skills required to do it. Say you have five people in PR, of which three are responsible for trawling through sources to find out what’s actually being said about the company, and two are responsible for writing press releases. The jobs of two of the people trawling through sources could be replaced with AI, as the limiting factor is the amount of posts, documents and stories you can read. While you’d still need an overseer to fact check and collate, that sort of work can be done much faster than actually reading and finding sources. If the company also lays off one of the people responsible for writing press releases, however, that would be unrelated to AI as that sort of job isn’t replaceable by AI (right now at least) due to the majority of the work being something that probabilistic models just aren’t correct enough to do, so that’d be an unrelated layoff being blamed on AI, even if whoever orders it genuinely believes that AI has replaced the job.

I mean one of those faces consequences for its actions if it kills a protester, the other less so

Worse is relative, a proportion of the requirement increase will be due to worse code, but much more will be for features to make the software more accessible to more people, and adding features without needing to remove old ones, neither of which are a bad thing, otherwise everything would be a command line tool that removes options every few months and only has one way to use it

AI image generation is amazing for replacing stock photos, and not bad at replacing clipart and porn images.

AI video generation is ok at replacing very simple videos without continuity or physics, but their only real applications are for spreading misinformation or mindless scrolling, there’s just no real way to get anyone to pay for them.

That’s aside from the fact that sora could’ve been great for generating generic stock footage/b-roll, but the way they implemented it was to generate a script, then audio, then video, which meant that it really struggled to generate anything without a focal point, ie what it would actually be useful for.

Regarding rigging voting machines, that’s conspiracy theory territory, however you did miss that Democrats are more likely to be working jobs where you can’t easily take time off to vote, or it’s that or lunch, or the time they give you isn’t enough, so doing it in advance by post is pretty much the only way you can vote.

The surge starts around 2016, could be political instability following David Cameron leaving/Brexit, smartphones being common enough that muggings increase, changes in policies due to Sadiq Khan being elected, children who grew up during the recession growing old enough to join gangs, or a number of other things

I think the drop is 2020 and then it never recovered actually?

Probably Switzerland.

All AI is good for is giving instructions on how to make bombs, and generating images of tits, but they caught on so now we just end up with search summaries saying it’s not physically possible to [xyz].

There’s even a difference between someone paying to have their name on a new building and someone renaming something that already exists though.

Same in sports where a stadium has always been known by a name then it changes for sponsorship reason, it just doesn’t feel right. If the sponsor’s name was attached from opening then it’s fine.

The correct way, really

In the UK we’re super lucky to have Scan, in-store if you’re in the North West or online otherwise, but for the US I guess it’s too big for a single good store to cover nationwide, then when you get too big you inevitably lose the quality that helped you grow

Yeah, I agree with that, but if you’re really desperate to move and worked in a way where it’s you’re only goal, it should be possible for around half of people. That may mean living in a shared room in the cheapest part of the bad area of town, getting around on a shitty bike, eating rice and beans while you save up level of frugality, but at that point it’s probably worth evaluating if it’s worth living like that to be able to leave the country down the line, and in most cases, it’s probably not.

Essentially, not “git good,” just “it is possible, just probably not worth it.”

Also the post was about immigration controls anyway, not having the means to actually move.

Yes, I was referring to someone in the top 50% of earners, still half of all people in the US.

To get to most countries if you’re on that demographic, you just need to have a job.

To get to the US historically, you needed to either get a H1B visa, which last I heard had a 9% chance per year, enter the green card lottery, which has a 0.3% chance per year, or transfer within your company after getting promoted to a managerial role via an L1A visa, which is a slow process and very dependant on who you work for, and on your origin country for acceptance rates.

For people in the bottom 50%, I agree it’s historically been easier to go the US with the green card lottery, fairly accessible visas if you have immediate family living in the US, and even for illegal immigration with birthright citizenship, as then you can get a green card through your children.

I was basing my comment on the fact most people on Lemmy are going to be nerds working in IT/Sciences/Engineering, but even then, if you take a mean “ease for a random sample to move” then it’s still harder to move to the US than out of it.

Immigration is very possible to a lot of countries via employer sponsored routes, generally for highly developed countries the requirement is “you have to be earning above average for your industry,” so essentially if you’re in the top 50% by skill/experience you should be allowed in. Others require certain levels of education, etc. but for US citizens those levels should generally be achievable.

Relatively, moving to the US has been so much harder than moving out for a long time now, which is why people are saying “just move out.”

The thing with PE is they only invest what they’re willing to lose, which the vast majority of their investments do, but the tiny fraction that don’t make enough money to fund profits and cover losses.

If 95% of companies in the stock market lost money, that’d be the end of days, but that’s because generally once you graduate to an IPO you have to be pretty profitable.