sometimes you write the feature and write it well so it's reusable.
imagine you have to implement a specific algorithm for a quantum computer.
There's no value setting up AI to do the writing for you. That might be orders of magnitude harder then writing the algorithm directly.
For highly specialized one-off features, it doesn't always pay off.
On the other hand, if all you do are some generic items that AI can do well... then I'm not sure you're going to have a job long term, your prompts and automation will be useful for the new junior hires that will be specialized in using these and cost effective.
That feels like true in theory, but in practice, we see the reverse for advanced projects where AI is helping us a lot. A decent chunk of our core IP falls into the bucket you're describing:
We have been building a GPU-accelerated graph investigation platform that has grown over 10+ years with fancy stuff all over the place - think accelerated query languages, layout kernels, distribution, etc. R&D-grade high performance engineering projects and kernels end up needing a lot of iterations to make a prototype and initial release. Likewise, they're more devilish to maintain when they need a small tweak later because of the sophistication and bus factor. Both phases benefit.
AI coding helps automate investigation, testing, measurement, patching, etc. The immediate effect is we can squeeze in many more experimental iterations with more fidelity and reach. Having an AI help automatically explore the design space and the details helps a LOT. And later, maintaining a wide surface area of code here that is delicate to touch and infrequently edited is traditionally stressful for teammates, and AI editing + AI-generated automation is helping destress that a LOT. We very much invest in upgrading our team, processes, and tooling here.
capitalism can work with say 99% tax on estate on death. No trust funds. Tax on wealth above a certain point. Rule of law with sharp teeth. Proper investment in education. Proper anti monopoly so all large corporations gets broken up to avoid their power consolidation...
communism is dictatorship in disguise.
then you have old style feudalism with aristocracy.
>I‘m sure if people want communism, they want the idealistic version.
That is what I mean. They don't want to live like the Soviets or Venezuelans or Cubans. They have a madeup idealistic version that is not real, never was and never will.
It's true that almost everything comes with a firewall rule that blocks new connections from the WAN to the LAN, so in practice these connections will be blocked on most things by default. But they come with this rule precisely because NAT doesn't do the job.
It is the default and default is secure. Users don't have to reason about it, they can assume it works, how doesn't matter and they may lack training/willingness to figure out.
You can't say the same for IPv6 where default is allow (have things changed?, havent checked in a long time)
Of course you can say the same for v6. Blocking connections that go from WAN to LAN by default has the same effect on both protocol families. If you assume that having the appropriate firewall rule to do that is the default then inbound connections will also be blocked on v6 by default.
NAT contributes nothing to your security in this scenario, and instead makes it harder (not easier) to understand and reason about what your router is doing.
Ah, okay. In that case v4 doesn't have a firewall by default either.
That's precisely why routers come configured with a firewall that blocks inbound connections from the WAN -- because the protocol itself doesn't have a firewall by default, and neither does NAT.
They weren't even acting as a power plant when they did that.
Buy yes I'll take a 1% chance of another 30x30 mile exclusion zone for 100k fewer coal deaths. Even if I have to personally live near it.
> Even with current standards there are a lot of nuclear power plants running just fine.
We could have a lot more of them making power for half the price and still hold them to very safe standards.
And if we focused on what was important while keeping costs under control, we'd get extra safety benefits by affordably rebuilding or replacing plants that were built in the 70s and 80s.
chernobyl affected a lot more then the exclusion zone, most of eastern europe... cancer rates spiked because of it... and it could have been a lot worse.
Effects are long term, hence question if you would live there now?, what would happen if Paris or London or Berlin were contaminated?, would you still live there?, would you live in Chernobyl city now?
When a reactor can mess up a whole country/area long term you need to take all precautions.
In spite of this, there are reactors built with plans to extend (Romania with Cernavoda for example), but they cost a lot and take a long time to build, plus areas where they can be built are likely limited.
Still preferable to the amount of people killed by coal.
> what would happen if Paris or London or Berlin were contaminated?
You can avoid building adjacent to cities.
> would you live in Chernobyl city now?
Really? I go ahead and say I'll live next to it, so you move the goalpost to living in it?
Screw it. Fine. If it will get a lot of large nuclear plants built outside Asia, I'll trade a promise to live inside any disaster zone caused by not only them but any other plant built in the West this century. Is that good enough for you? Chernobyl itself was not an example of modern nuclear power and I'm not going there.
> When a reactor can mess up a whole country/area long term you need to take all precautions.
Even setting aside the issue of being so cautious you cause harm in other ways, a lot of the precautions don't affect the odds of a big disaster!
> So it's not the standards that are the problem.
There's so much nitpicking on an individual plant basis, so I think they are a big problem.
I didn't see how "there are reactors built with plans to expand" is supposed to show that standards aren't driving the cost?
> Well, protected by the United States primarily. They've mostly divested from military spending and capabilities over time,
UK and France have nukes, european nato part isn't going to be invaded without nuclear exchanges.
Apart from that, each country is specialized on various things and combined military is quite capable.
Sure, it's not US level of spending... which is probably a good thing given the US basically cut education and healthcare for a few generations for that.
> UK and France have nukes, european nato part isn't going to be invaded without nuclear exchanges.
I like to think this is true, but how many French soldiers coming home in body bags defending Lithuania will it take before they say enough? Are they going to just resort to nuclear weapons against Russia immediately? I don't think the nuclear umbrella is the trump card that it you might be portraying it to be. It's really difficult to say who would use those and when. There are some obvious cases, but there are also some not so obvious ones.
But nukes aren't enough. You're not winning the Ukraine war with your nuclear umbrella for example - that's being won on the ground with Ukrainian blood.
> Apart from that, each country is specialized on various things and combined military is quite capable.
Combined command of a military like this is incredibly difficult, and while I'd certainly agree that some specific militaries are quite capable of [1], I think the political and organizational system in Europe really poses a challenge. But even so those militaries lack power projection capabilities and lack in some other key areas.
[1] In order probably Ukraine -> UK -> France -> Poland and then nobody else registers. Ignoring Russia because they're not really European IMO.
> Sure, it's not US level of spending... which is probably a good thing given the US basically cut education and healthcare for a few generations for that.
Nah, we actually have money to easily afford both we just have a bunch of morons in charge (Democrats and Republicans) who, particular to healthcare, have gotten us the worst of both worlds. Education we're #1 there's no question about that.
France trained the most efficient recon crews, and the most efficient Ukrainian sniper units (some of them led by ex french soldiers. At least with a french passport, or on the verge of getting one). Caesar MK1 are the most efficient howitzer by a large margin in Ukrainian conflict, and Ukraine have half the French number, and first MK1 units, when France is starting to get Caesar MK2. Our MBTs is so much better than Ukrainian tanks it isn't a comparison, and French rafales are not a joke, unlike su57s. When it come to boots on the ground and artillery support, nobody can beat Italy in Europe, though Finland probably can give it a run, and both countries would have defended Russia aggression easily. Special units are not even a consideration tbh, both French and Italian winter units are incredibly better trained than Spetnaz it appears (and they have the advantage of like, not being dead), and even they are less well trained and equipped than those in Finland/Sweden/Norway/Denmark or UK.
If you're talking about global capabilities, including power projection, then the ranking have to start with France, and have Italy very, very close to the UK if not ahead (if we don't take into account nukes), and then Spain should be slightly above Poland and Ukraine, maybe with Finland and Sweden in the mix (gripe3 and CV90?). German have the Gepard which seems to be the best response to drones, but their army is too new. The only thing Europe truly lacks is a strong IFV with reactive armor like the Bradley, maybe the Lynx would qualify but the quantity is clearly not enough.
And here I didn't talk about military doctrine and how well both French, Italian and German equipment fit their own, which to me is a huge advantage right after the early days of a conflict, because even when no one really know what to do and improvise, at least the whole army group improvise in the same direction.
True, Turkey is a bit harder to rank. Or was hard to rank before February. They showed during NATO joint exercise projection capability i didn't know they were capable of, and imho they should be ranked around UK/Italy on projection capacity (though special forces seems to be a weak point, so probably below them tbh). If the fight is local though (in first sphere of influence), yeah, they probably are the first fighting force in europe (including Russia), with their army size, drone, artillery and AA capacity.
> Education we're #1 there's no question about that.
I am wondering what you mean. Top-tier universities full of foreign nationals doing excellent research and funded by exorbitant fees? Sure.
But what about pre-college education?
Reading this thread, with people variously claiming things about Israel as if the country had sprung up from nothing with divine rights on the 7th october, or about Iran, as if the regime had suddenly appeared in 1979, without any US involvement in its suffering before (1953) or after (1984), makes me willing to question that education in the US is promoting critical thinking. Maybe the time spent singing the anthem would be better used actually reading history?
> Education we're #1 there's no question about that.
Education is about social mobility, a chance for anyone to participate depending on their intelligence/grit/motivation.
You guys only have education for the rich/elite.
If you have to pay for it, or be lucky to have parents next to good schools then you've failed.
> But nukes aren't enough.
Lookup french nuclear doctrine to see discouragement effect.
Also, european NATO is capable of bombing conventionally moscow/other russian cities in case of war with some losses.
Eliminating Putin/Leadership would probably stop any war.
That would probably be the first counter to any invasion with threat of using nukes as a threat to keep russia from going for nukes. (losing moscow/sankt petersburg might be too much for russia same as paris/berlin would be for other countries)
The other counter is some rapid deployment of troops to hold off any russian troops and make it very deadly for them until leadership decides to retreat.
Sure, a poweruser can bring their own ram/ssd. But again they pay almost as much and have a worse system performance wise.
Normal users don't profit from anything you listed. They do have to buy a notebook with all components, and thus currently have to pay more for linux/windows hardware compared to Apple.
Also, RAM isn't backwards compatiple. Literally had this problem with my old ddr4 not fitting in the newer ddr5 slots when my ddr5 acted up.
Heard exactly the same thing about VPN use (kids won't know how to set up a VPN). Then Australia age verification kicked in, and VPN use went through the roof [0]
And, of course, the response so far has included similar thoughts as the UK about banning VPNs [1]
> Research grants are given by governments mainly to first TEACH students
Government's goal is obvious and correct, but if you have done a research and tried to get a grant you should know grants are very "political" as well, if you are researching a thing which is not trendy or takes another 10 years to yield results, but there is another lab who is telling we are researching LLM, it will be very difficult to get a grant even if you promise to TEACH/hire 20 students for that research.
Justifying long term benefits is difficult problem
The difficulty the researchers who developed RNA vaccines faced in getting funding is a good example of how bad the system is. Safe and unambitious is preferred,
imagine you have to implement a specific algorithm for a quantum computer.
There's no value setting up AI to do the writing for you. That might be orders of magnitude harder then writing the algorithm directly.
For highly specialized one-off features, it doesn't always pay off.
On the other hand, if all you do are some generic items that AI can do well... then I'm not sure you're going to have a job long term, your prompts and automation will be useful for the new junior hires that will be specialized in using these and cost effective.
reply