For me how cheap it is makes it much more comfortable for me to just take it with me whenever I travel. My other e-reader is a Kobo Sage but it is so expensive that I'm way more careful with it. And I feel like the weight is seriously underrated as a selling point. It barely feels like a piece of tech.
This is so well put, and it not only happens on the user level but also on the organisational level. Where you can completely abdicate both responsibility and explanation by moving the complicated questions into the black box of an AI model.
> Automated tests are already the output of these specs, and specs cover way more than what you cover with code.
ok but how are you sure that the AI is correctly turning the spec into tests. if it makes a mistake there and then builds the code in accordance with the mistaken test you only get the Illusion of a correct implementation
unironically yes, I think with the huge payday they get for being responsible for Microsoft they should also carry an equivalent responsibility when they cause social harms. Billionaires have gotten way too comfortable.
I hate them too, but arresting them for something that they simply cannot prevent due to technical limitations, since they cannot scan in realtime all the conversations happening on their platform, is Russian-style government action, not rule of law.
Before they built the platform this danger did not exist. There is no law of nature that says massive social media platforms that are too large to moderate effectively need to exist.
If they have built a thing they can't maintain that isn't bully for them and we should feel sorry that their best efforts aren't working well enough - it's proof that that thing (or at least the way they built that thing) isn't feasible.
If you can't do a thing safely and without harm, perhaps you should not be doing the thing? It blows my mind the number of tech people who just say "it's too hard to do it safely and without harm so we'll just do it anyway and externalize the damage to other people." Lazy, greedy, amoral douche bags.
Cars? Airplanes? Motorcycles? Child birth? Life itself?
Nothing could be done 100% safely and 100% without harm.
Obsession with safety is what helps governments become totalitarian even in traditionally-democratic countries.
Obsession with safety is the reason terrorists win.
Edit: Personally I think betting on war is immoral and should be condemned by all sane people, but saying that everything needs 100% safety and 100% no harm is very naive.
The items you've listed are all quite safe and palatable in their harm when contrasted with the benefits they bring. I'm not seeing the same picture when looking at polymarket - I don't see the great gain we're accomplishing as a society in exchange for an addicting platform that breeds organized crime. Some inventions are just plain dangerous and a bad idea.
when i use claude opus via opencode/openrouter i'm sometimes suprised by how quickly costs can get out of hand. What are the costs of running openClaw, it seems like it would get crazy expensive crazy fast?
It depends on your classification of effective. If it is to gather accurate information, it is ineffective. If it is to gather the justification for what you were going to do anyway, it can be most effective.
For a fairly recent example: the US' post-911 War on Terror when they were waterboarding people. This definitely didn't get them any real info, and they found out in the worst way that innocent people will confess when they think they are actively dying.
Prior to this, it was already known to produce false feedback and confessions. The US military has a strange way of repeating history to see if it'll turn out differently "this time." It sadly never does.
reply