Note that the paper ballots generally don't take longer to count, they are generally digitally scanned in the same way the printouts from the touchscreen machines are.

It might speed up voting as a tap is a little faster than filling a bubble, but then again a wide tip marker would fix that, but then you might spoil more ballots when people aren't sure if they mismarked it.

Note that every state can differ.

In my case, it is a pen and paper, scanned by machine.

I don't know if any state has gone full digital. That would preclude a manual recount, which I know is commonly a right of a candidate to request in a close result.

Not just wall street, some of the pro-slop people in my work are getting increasingly desperate and unhinged.

They formed an 'AI native team' to develop 'groundbreaking new applications' more rapidly than our dumb old software development teams are doing even with AI tools available.

The logic: Obviously software development skills just make the developers too opinionated and they stand in the way of AI.

The problem: After 6 months, every single vibed up slop project has failed to get through QA, and the developers can't get AI to address the issues QA is reporting (similar stuff as people have been reporting with the slop-clones of Office and Photoshop, UI elements that fail to do anything despite looking like they should, the software doing one thing when it was asked to do another).

The proposed solution emailed out: QA obviously is a problem getting in the way of the slop the customers clearly want to pay for, so we should consider skipping QA and working with the customers instead to fix it. I'm hoping this is the line that executives won't cross, most of them have been chewed out by customers enough over more mundane fuckups that they could see what a shitstorm it would be to skip the only thing protecting us from shit.

Well, so far, it's the "I've bet my entire career on AI" leader who has not yet gotten traction. He had a large benefit of the doubt but I feel like leadership is getting more and more skeptical about him and his band of merry sloppers.

I'd say it's never been as good as Musk and Altman especially make it sound.

If you drill into the nuance of their proof points that their companies bother to share, it's generally a bit more clear that things aren't exactly 'asterisk free' even then. Most recently I read how one of them proudly proclaimed they were 100% manual code free, but for the task described they still had 200 developers, which is significantly more developers than I have traditionally seen. To get things vaguely working, you need to be relentless in providing a super comprehensive set of requirements and criteria that are impeccable at fully capturing what is needed and could reasonably go wrong. Also a fanatical amount of detail to audit how the solution was reached and correct missteps, like when it decides to delete a failing test case instead of fixing the correlated problem. The 'purist' approach is, in my opinion, worse for the sake of just signaling how 'AI-friendly' you are.

I can at least buy that from a pragmatic perspective, the codegen can accelerate things if used under a more balanced approach, being able to be in the code and grasp in detail where it might have gone wrong and correct it before it gets lost in a mess of garbage. It will do things that a human might skip that they shouldn't, like hooking various unlikely errors and providing a nicer treatment. It is often useful to get a general idea of a good choice of library to do something and how it fits in your code, though you still have to beware that it may invent details that would be nice and convenient, but are wrong.

The problem is that narrative is totally not what they need to justify the spend. They needed to take randos and prompt up things without full understanding. They needed AI codegen to be really valued on the same level as a full headcount. This trickles down to little folk like the team lead in my situation, where he thinks this is his only ticket to the 'big leagues' if he manages to drive a success story for 'AI native'. He doesn't understand any of it and his team doesn't understand any of it and so of course the AI can't bring what actually understanding the scenario would.

Even more rough for that guy: he imagines a world of slopping up code and then selling the result, without ever having unique skill or insight. Assuming that can work, then why would any company buy your slop instead of just slopping it up themselves?

As someone who went through the dot.com bust at a very unfortunate time in my career, I'm always looking for the escape hatch.

But I feel like the prevaling opinion in the leadership guy is increasingly dubious of this guy, so I'm hopeful sanity prevails.

But at least they have to tell the voters roughly what they want to do so the voters know what they are actually voting for. So 'just win the damn elections' should include some indication of their priorities.

Well, since they are using GenAI, someone is litterally getting paid by the word...

Seems like that wasn't argued, just a maneuver to preserve the control facet of the shares even while surrendering some of the financial value could be seen as acceptable...

Wealth tax is a property tax, and just like I am forced to pay tax based on a presumed amount I could sell my house for, it can absolutely make sense to do the same for stocks. But I can totally accept that whatever that is, it shouldn't mean someone must cede control of a company based merely on a tax burden.

Of course, that said, these 'too big' companies arguably have too much public interest broadly to be focused in so few people, but that's a separate discussion than the taxation part.

The filibuster rule is a parliamentary thing that could be changed/ignored, but the veto is very much unavoidable. Without 2/3rds they cannot pass a thing Trump would object to, and without 2/3rds they can't remove him.

So it was a bit of a bullshit thing when a party has house, senate, and president and still can't vote things through due to the filibuster, but at least for now the democrats are still stuck with the veto.

I think he's likely to not run again. Why run if you can just abolish the election?

401k isn't necessarily dependant on the stock market, but the stock market being the 'right' investment has been a self-fulfilling property, any 'default' election goes mostly stock, because stock goes up. stock goes up in part because a portion of everyone's paycheck defaults to being spent on stocks.

But what you can do with a 401k can be limited. I was looking at my options for something that would be a bit more bubble resistant, back testing them against the crash of the attack on Iran, and every single one of the options my plan allows had market exposure, even if more of them were not directly stock.

No.... The worst year Amazon ever had was a net loss of $1.4 Billion back in 2000. Most years in the early days they were at a loss of a few dozen million. At the time, they drew a lot of criticism for running red way longer. If Amazon ran at their worst year for 50 years, they still would have lost less money than Anthropic did.

They haven't operated at a loss in over a decade.

In this case, some he is the plan plaintiff, I assume that wouldn't happen, just his case will get thrown out.

Ok, but what would that look like in a way that would have mitigated this situation? Seems likely that such a system could actually exacerbate this specific scenario.

Conceptually, I get it. Esepecially if you go with the 'DNS pinning of CA' to have a 'belt and suspenders' approach where two chains of authority must be broken, one of which inherently tied to your name.

Practically speaking, DNSSEC hasn't managed to get ubiquitous adoption. To the point where browsers started giving up and doing DNS over HTTPS to well known providers instead.

After trying for a bit, I can certainly relate to understanding little of it. It's not as concretely explained as I would like and sticks to abstract principles. So no idea about the current state of affairs.

Indeed, the boots theory of poverty. So many things are cheaper even in absolute terms if you have enough money to get things cheaper or get better things for not much more money that will way outlast the cheap stuff. Also people are more excited to just give you money when you have money (higher interest rate, even for very safe savings accounts).

So much better game experience, but nowhere near the cash cow of people blowing money on cosmetics in live service games and pay to win. Even super low effort mobile games will frequently milk out way more cash.

Basically the good money is with low quality content, so good quality has to come out of enthusiasm for gaming, not from board rooms.

I see two ways this could happen:

They make it so you cannot run some models yourself without government approval, based on some criteria. For a random citizen, this would be harder than trying to stop piracy, and thus those willing to ignore the technical law may continue however they like, but it would be enough to block businesses from doing so. Kind of like how some software has a license that is a trap for businesses to have to pay if employees end up using it, but is widely popular among consumers that can get and use it freely. So the home market can do whatever if they really want, but the businesses and products those businesses launch can't ignore that sort of regulation so freely.

Another path is if they really get buy in that this is dangerous for mere peons to have: regulate hardware available for consumer purchase. Like no VRAM above 32GB, and nothing with the compute horsepower to go more than say 100 tok/s with a 32B model. Effectively setting a forever cap on home usage to current top-end 'consumer' and putting regulatory restrictions on beefier stuff. Consumer compute becomes just about improving power and cooling and form factor, no more expanding the capabilities beyond current top end.