> AI's / LLM's have already been trained on best practices for most domains.
I've been at this long enough to see that today's best practices are tomorrow's anti-patterns. We have not, in fact, perfected the creation of software. And the your practices will evolve not just with the technology you use but the problem domains you're in.
I don't mean this as an argument against LLMs or vibe coding. Just that you're always going to need a fresh corpus to train them on to keep them current... and if the pool of expertly written code dries up, models will begin to stagnate.
I've been doing this a long time too. The anti-patterns tend to come from the hype cycles of "xyz shiny tool/pattern will take away all the nasty human problems that end up creating bad software". Yes, LLMs will follow this cycle too, and, I agree we are in a kind of sweet spot moment for LLMs where they were able to ingest massive amounts of training material from the open web. That will not be the case going forward, as people seek to more tightly guard their IP. The (open) question is whether the training material that exists plus whatever the tools can self generate is good enough for them to improve themselves in a closed loop cycle. LLM generated code was the right tool for my job today; doesn't mean it's the right tool for everyone's job or that it always will be. One thing constant in this industry is change. Sold as revolutionary, which is the truth, in the sense of going in circles/cycles.
Also, they've been trained on common practices more than they've been trained on best practices. And best practice is heavily context dependent anyways.
Palantir will give a lot of fake positives and overload remainder of ICE forces who will be chasing ghosts.
Heck even Google believes that I am a woman and is constantly showing me women hair and clothes products. And they are doing targeted data mining for ads business for decades.
ICE doesn't give a shit about false positives. They are already using a facial recognition app as definitive proof of someone's immigration status, even when they are shown documentation such as a birth certificate. They don't care if it's accurate, they just want targets.
That would make the agents culpable. If they're just doing what the AI told them to do, then who can hold them responsible? After all, the AI is smarter than all humans combined, who can argue with its wisdom?
Expect "The AI told me to do it" to be tried as a defense at Nuremburg 2.0
This is the correct question to be asking, but maybe not for the reason you thought. AI is an incredible tool for shifting liability and manufacturing plausible deniability, which appears to be exceedingly useful for authoritarian regimes around the world. Not just externally (i.e. in media), but internally as well (Ender’s Game: shoot the guy the computer says is bad, never give mind to whether or why he’s bad).
Take a look at your sibling comments, that AI is a mistake is a flawed viewpoint. It’s very much doing what it’s intended to do: shift liability and create plausible deniability.
I mean that's in Europe, but it is called Citizen ID - State issued card automatically when you are 15, looking like drivers license, renewed every 10 years.
If ICE were as unpopular as you say with conservatives, they would not have been defending both murders with such passion. I guess this is the difference in listening to the 'streets' vs a carefully sampled poll.
Looking at net support is an odd way to look at the data.
Overall approval of Trump's immigration policy is floating around 50% +/- 5%. That means 1 out of every 2 Americans support it. That seems quite high to me.
Many Americans understand "Trump's immigration policy" to be "deport murderers, rapists, and drug dealers".
But what's happening now is that Trump pulled a bait and switch -- when he said "deport criminals" the crime he had in mind was that of being an undocumented immigrant, whereas everyone else had in their head when he said criminal he meant "murders, rapist, gangbanger, drug dealers". Not "people going through the asylum process and my roofer".
For a lot of people, they just want to see immigrants come in the "right way", but for the Trump administration they don't want to see any immigrants who are not white.
So when people say they support Trump's immigration policies, you have to really dissect what they mean by that. Which policies? The ones he campaigned on, the ones they wish he campaigned on and are ascribing to him regardless, or the ones actually being implemented?
> Looking at net support is an odd way to look at the data.
Its a lot more useful as a single number to look at than either “support” or “oppose”, because those don't tell you how much of the excluded amount is on the other side versus undecided.
> Overall approval of Trump's immigration policy is floating around 50% +/- 5%
Overall immigration policy is a different and broader question, but, no, its not.
39% support, with 53% opposed; support hasn't been at or above 45% (the floor of your claimed 50% ± 5%) since the beginning of last summer.
Isn't this the same problem of many people who feel otherwise not participating in polls? The conservative subreddit shows a very different story. I'm sure the asktrumpsupporters sub does also.
I think modern polling is deeply flawed, but taking the sentiments of a particular subreddit as more representative of an entire political party than the polling is probably taking it too far.
The polling is frequently wrong. I believe the subreddits (not just one) are mostly real people giving their views. They are not just random subs, they are the subs for those particular ideologies. They also match the opinions media pundits put out, and match various supporters appearing in other media, like the Jubilee Surrounded videos. On the balance of evidence available, it seems most people in that party is more for than against what has been going on.
We've gotten to a dark place where someone doesn't just slip into an echo chamber by accident but actively chooses to believe that selectively sampled data sources are actually superior to sources that attempt randomization.
There is no sane reason to think the subreddits nor Jubilee videos are actually representative, and certainly no reason to believe they are representative in contradiction to virtually every poll conducted in the past 12 months.
"Prior polls are wrong" is a lazy man's way out. Polls actually have been way less wrong than people commonly meme about, and again there's no sane reason to say "sources that attempt randomization were wrong so therefore sources that actively bias their samples are probably better."
It's not a dark place to try and be objective and take data from multiple sources, and shame on you for trying to paint doing so as something negative.
> There is no sane reason to think the subreddits nor Jubilee videos are actually representative, and certainly no reason to believe they are representative in contradiction to virtually every poll conducted in the past 12 months.
It's not just those sources, it's basically every single source yo ucan fine with people giving an opinion. Every talk show (Fox/News Nation/ONE, etc), all the right aligned papers e.g. NY Post, WSJ, all the podcasters, all the influencers, and yes, whenever supporters are given a chance to speak, they overwhelming are pleased and support what is going on.
At some point, ignoring all that and favoring purely a few polls is wilful ignorance, and I have to question the motive of anyone doing so. At a guess, I'd guess it's someone that voted conservative but doesn't want to be lumped in with 'the bad ones'.
No, I'm just not ignoring the majority of data points that disagree with the reality a particular reality I hope to wish into existence with the power of belief.
In general you should discount low quality data points, potentially to zero, while prioritizing high quality data points — regardless of which each of them says.
Both of those are heavily astroturfed / propagandized. Historically they often did reflect the views of supporters, because the subreddits mirror the talking points presented across all other conservative media - and most conservatives adopt their beliefs from those media sources. Thus, even though the voices you read on the subreddits are mostly "bots", they typically mirror the sentiment you'll hear from the actual people.
However, this is not guaranteed to always be the case - and regardless, the voices on r/conservative and r/asktrumpsupporters are not necessarily actual real people's voices, even if they usually say similar things as real people.
Yes, I recognize this has echoes of the "no true scotsman" fallacy, but it's just an accurate description of the system.
> Both of those are heavily astroturfed / propagandized.
I'm pretty skeptical of that, honestly. I think if we apply Occam, it's just that there are enough people that do feel like that. Look at some of the Jubilee 'Surrounded' videos to see that such people are not in short supply.
There's not much financial motive in building up or buying accounts just for them to say they agree with what's going on - it doesn't help anyone in power right now. Anecdotal, but the users I check the profile history off seem legitimate posting across several different subs also.
> I'm pretty skeptical of that, honestly. I think if we apply Occam, it's just that there are enough people that do feel like that.
After following that sub fairly closely in the days after big scandals on the GOP side since Jan 6th, I can personally vouch for r/conservative being incredibly controlled and propagandized.
Not only do the mods delete many even slightly critical comments by their own flaired conservative users pretty quickly, almost any thread about a scandal or gaffe that's not filled with one-sided commentary is also deleted after a few days. The last big example I remember was the tariff stuff over the last year - there were always at least three or more posts about any new announcement, and the ones with the most negative comments were gone after a few days.
I can't show you archived data since those tools stopped working due to AI scraping, but I implore you to at least follow a few negative threads and to take regular snapshots. I've never seen any other internet community that's modded so strictly without admitting to it.
And yet, you can still go to any thread, find dissenting and sometimes negative opinions by users with accounts that are several years old.
I'm not claiming it's super reliable or super representative, but I do think it is representative as one point, and despite all the issues around the sub, that representation matches most other sources. Except a few polls, which I don't think count for much these days.
> It's as far away from representative as it can be.
Nah. If that were the case, it wouldn't match conservative opinions from so many other sources.
Let me ask you something. You said you're 'from the GOP side above'. Can you rule out confirmation bias here, that you don't want to be affiliated with support of what is going on, so you're focusing on evidence that you think shows that your 'side' doesn't support it?
> My apologies, you talked about scandals on the GOP side.
I don't understand how that leads you to understand that I am affiliated with them?
>> Yes, I can rule out confirmation bias.
> How?
First please explain how confirmation bias on my side would influence the amount of deleted comments and threads in that subreddit.
It somehow seems that you really want that subreddit to be representative of the average conservative. And if anyone disagrees, you throw out accusations to see what sticks. Why?
> I don't understand how that leads you to understand that I am affiliated with them?
It doesn't, I misremembered your wording as something that did. That is what my apology was for.
> the amount of deleted comments and threads in that subreddit.
See, I just don't think this is as significant as you do - there are still plenty of dissenting opinions on there.
> It somehow seems that you really want that subreddit to be representative of the average conservative. And if anyone disagrees, you throw out accusations to see what sticks. Why?
It's not about just that sub, look at the asktrumpsupporters sub also, look at every other media source where people can give opinions, paid or guest. I'm arguing more that MAGA folk are still generally in support. I think the conservative sub shows that, but even without it I think that point stands.
> See, I just don't think this is as significant as you do - there are still plenty of dissenting opinions on there.
But you don't know what kind of dissenting opinions they're deleting, because you're not looking at it! How do you know they don't just leave the "accepted" dissent, and delete anything that goes beyond that? This would completely change whether the subreddit is representative, and you would have no idea. And again: that is exactly what I've seen.
Dissent isn't a binary thing. The content matters far more than its mere presence.
> It's not about just that sub, look at the asktrumpsupporters sub also
That's also not a good yardstick. Not only do those mods explicitly state that they delete comments by Trump supporters that show strong dissent, multiple long-time TS there have eventually admitted to playing a role, trying to make conservatives look as bad as possible.
> I'm arguing more that MAGA folk are still generally in support
Sure, I'm not doubting that. They're hopeless cult followers. All I'm saying is: that subreddit is incredibly propagandized and should not be taken as representative of anything.
> But you don't know what kind of dissenting opinions they're deleting, because you're not looking at it! How do you know they don't just leave the "accepted" dissent, and delete anything that goes beyond that? This would completely change whether the subreddit is representative, and you would have no idea. And again: that is exactly what I've seen.
Well, this is where our experiences differ, because I've been observing that sub for years, and I've seen the threads and comments that get deleted, and I don't think it changes much in the way you do.
If they only deleted comments from comments on the left, I think the sub would still be representative, maybe less so, but still so.
> Not only do those mods explicitly state that they delete comments by Trump supporters that show strong dissent, multiple long-time TS there have eventually admitted to playing a role, trying to make conservatives look as bad as possible.
Do you think any subs are representative? Do you think all the numerous people defending the murder of Renee Good and defending ICE were bots? What about X, or Gab, where it's easy to find mass opinions mirroring those subs?
Please stop replying to me. I don't value your input and you clearly don't value mine, so why continue? I'm not trying to discuss anything with you, please stop trying to force discussions with me.
It may come as a surprise, but other people read forums. In fact, the vast majority of users read and do not write.
While I understand you do not wish to have any contrary contributions made to your thinking, I am making a productive contribution for the many readers here who may be grappling with this issue themselves.
Of course you are welcome to converse on a non-forum format if you wish to have private conversations and to have total control over who may respond to you.
I personally have a vested interest in a society that's more rather than less capable of understanding reality, and using appropriate tools to do so, so I'll continue to contribute toward that end.
> While I understand you do not wish to have any contrary contributions made to your thinking
That's not the case at all, in fact, I love that, a critical analysis is necessary to establishing truth.
You're not doing that though. You've resorted to insults more than once, and you just tow the line to defend conservatives, it's impossible to have a productive discussion with you because your bias/motive is pushing everything, not a desire for truth.
Keep spreading your nonsense/disinformation I guess, since I can't stop it, and I'll just do my best to ignore it. I would however recommend some self-reflection, as petty little obsessions like this are far from healthy.
The fact you apparently think I'm conservative (or even have any inclination toward defending conservatives) is a good proof of how distorted your perception is.
My comment history (and voting history) would conclusively show the exact opposite.
> If they only deleted comments from comments on the left, I think the sub would still be representative, maybe less so, but still so.
If they stopped deleting comments by conservatives, it would be less representative than it is now when they're also broadly deleting dissent from conservatives? How does this make sense?
Because the deleted dissent is not so great in number as to change the sub from being representative to non-representative.
Let me ask you again: Do you think any subs are representative of conservatives? Do you think all the numerous people defending the murder of Renee Good and defending ICE were bots? What about X, or Gab, where it's easy to find mass opinions mirroring those subs? Where is the conservative home on the internet where everyone is against what is happening?
> Because the deleted dissent is not so great in number as to change the sub from being representative to non-representative.
That does not relate to the question I asked. You said that the sub would be less representative if they stopped deleting conservative dissent. How would it be less representative?
I said "If they only deleted comments from comments on the left, I think the sub would still be representative, maybe less so, but still so."
My point was it might show more variation, but would still overwhelmingly match the view on other social media platforms and published works from media sources that align. The only crack has been with Alex Pretti having a gun because of 2A fanaticism, there was no significant dissent regarding the murder of Renee Good, for example.
Now, a third time, let me ask you again: Do you think any subs are representative of conservatives? Do you think all the numerous people defending the murder of Renee Good and defending ICE were bots? What about X, or Gab, where it's easy to find mass opinions mirroring those subs? Where is the conservative home on the internet where everyone is against what is happening?
> I said "If they only deleted comments from comments on the left, I think the sub would still be representative, maybe less so, but still so."
Exactly, do you not see the logical contradiction? As we both agree, they currently delete comments from both "the left" and dissenting conservatives. The only change in your proposed scenario is that they stop deleting comments from dissenting conservatives. How can the sub be less representative in that scenario?
> Now, a third time, let me ask you again: Do you think any subs are representative of conservatives?
I have no idea! I haven't spent any time looking at other conservative subs than the two you mentioned. How should I know?
> Do you think all the numerous people defending the murder of Renee Good and defending ICE were bots?
No?
> What about X, or Gab, where it's easy to find mass opinions mirroring those subs?
No?
> Where is the conservative home on the internet where everyone is against what is happening?
I have no idea, why are you asking me like I should know?
-----
I get the very strong impression that you think I'm trying to make some bigger argument about the opinions present in the current conservative movement in the US. I am not. All I'm saying is: the community you're pointing at is objectively not representative of the opinions of its users because it's heavily moderated and propagandized.
By arguing that it still is representative, you're legitimizing this propaganda. Instead of accusing people who present counterarguments of being aligned with the conservative movement (I am very much not, and you can check my comment history to see that I've been arguing against them for years), maybe take a step back and consider the effect of what you're doing?
You can try an experiment for yourself. If you have a Reddit account, comment something on one of these subreddits that doesn't toe the party line. Wait less than 24 hours until your comment is removed and you are banned.
What do you think that proves, though? Yes, they don't let anti-conservative people comment in the sub, that doesn't mean the people that are posting are bots or paid.
It's the same as all the Tesla subreddits, they ban and delete anything negative so casual readers don't get anything but a very biased and curated viewpoint.
Even worse, the subreddit they are using as their example of common "conservative thought" is a subreddit where only verified Conservative users can post, and any dissenting opinion is met with bans and post deletion. You have to go to their Discord and provide enough proof your are conservative (MAGA) before they will let you post.
It's not indicative of how people feel in general. It's a very specific, coaxed and managed image.
I am not lying when I say the front page of the Conservative subreddit is run by less than 10 accounts. You can go there now and see that most of the submissions on the front page of the subreddit is split between the same 3-4 users at any given time.
It's representative of the opinions conservatives share. There are many more commenters than submissions, and other conservative subs like asktrumpsupporters show the same sentiments.
A lot of conservatives in this discussion suddenly seem embarrassed by the side they chose and really want to distance themselves from it.
The conservative subreddit isn't fake as such, it's just incredibly tightly curated and so not in any way representative. Number of deleted comments is a better barometer than tone of remaining comments, if still not a great one, because you're simply not going to see any significant number straying too far from the party line.
I mean, there's plenty of disagreement to the point many call anyone who dissents "fellow conservative", which has become kind of a joke. The official line is they remove any non-conservative posts, which doesn't seem relevant when assessing to what extent conservative posters support what is going in with ICE currently.
A vote for T is not a vote for every dimension of T.
In fact, all the data shows that the economy was the absolute top issue by a huge margin.
There's good reason to believe that not only would any Republican have gotten similar or better results, but that if it had been a Republican in power, that any Democrat would've gotten similar or better results.
Incumbents got smacked (far harder than Trump v Harris) in every election in the world in 2024, which is concordant with a long history of incumbents getting smacked during periods of high inflation.
> A vote for T is not a vote for every dimension of T.
Does. Not. Matter.
When you vote for T you know you are getting all of T.
> In fact, all the data shows that the economy was the absolute top issue by a huge margin.
Sure, and the poorly educated overwhelmingly chose to believe the lies they were told because they were attractive, and were taken advantage of. It doesn't matter. Lets say they were single issue voters on the economy, well, they still voted for T knowing all of what that entails.
Then there was no sense in you pointing out that a vote for T is not a vote for every dimension of T, since pointing out the obvious and gets another answer pointing out the obvious in response.
> That's totally irrelevant as to whether the current actions are actually popular.
You've chosen to rely on a single poll that supports your contention that they aren't, when pretty much every single other source of info is contrary to that.
You want to put all your faith in a poll, that's on you. There isn't much for us to discuss so I'd appreciate it if you stopped replying to me, so we don't just go around in circles.
Well it’s directly relevant to the claim “most Rs voted for T (fact) therefore you can infer most Rs support T_{specific policy}.”
Just simple logic!
No, I am actually not relying on a single poll. Pretty much all polls, even those with a conservative bent, converge on my claim and dispute yours.
This can’t possibly be news to you, otherwise you’d be sharing evidence to the contrary.
Instead you’re just openly declaring your own inability/unwillingness to assess information quality, and being proud of it?
Strange interaction indeed!
I can think of a few motivations one would have to knowingly deceive themselves into believing the immigration enforcement actions are popular, and all of those motivations are bad. Even aside from the basic violation of intellectual honesty.
> Instead you’re just openly declaring your own inability/unwillingness to assess information quality, and being proud of it?
That's your interpretation, which is far from reality. I think the big difference here is you put way more value on polls than is warranted. It's not like you've provided a ton of sources, either.
I likely won't be relying to you further, as I don't see the point. Cheers.
You can certainly prioritize evidence as you like, but I explained why when balancing all available evidence, it seems supporters are fine with what is happening. They say as much unambiguously in multiple places across multiple venues. I'll take that over a poll anyday.
Surely there are enough supporters to populate the message boards on which supporters congregate with messages of support. No doubt about that.
If you think that gives you a read on the overall attitude, then unfortunately there's nothing I can say to help you.
It is literally mathematically nonsensical to look at the numerator, put no effort into knowing the denominator, and then claim to have a sense for the ratio between them. It's shocking to see someone explicitly claim they can do this lmao.
I don't need help from you, thanks for the offer though, however misguided.
Like I said, you're free to ignore all the datapoints that disagree with you and focus on the one that doesn't, if that makes you feel better.
I don't think there's much for us to discuss, and instead of going back and forth ad nauseum I'd just really appreciate it if you stopped replying to me altogether.
So you have more data points? I am in fact interesting in them, I don't care too much who's in the right in this very discussion as this is all way too serious to be about who it being right.
But from what I have read with 'data' you mean your general impression from subreddits? Or do you have more robust data?
I can imagine a few affects that lead to the subreddit(s) evolve independent of the average opinion of R voters. It happens all the time with subreddits.
But then again, maybe you got more information about it?
I mean all data points taken as a whole bar the polls. I listed some of them earlier, ever talk show, opinion column, podcast, influencers (bar Joe Rogan), people calling in to radio shows. Anywhere you can find people giving an opinion, not just paid professionals but random people calling or writing in, it's in support. Literally 'the word on the street'. I don't think that's worth nothing, and I think that can be more representative than polls, as 2016 showed.
Furthermore, there's a lot of people who I think voted R who are now embarrassed and trying to defend the party and paint the people who support what is going on as a minority view, when it isn't.
Thanks for elaborating. So you think Joe Rogan's critic on ICE was inflated by media? I heard he spoke some critic regarding the latest actions. But he is still a strong supporter of the current administration, I guess?
Honestly I don't respect him so don't follow him too much, I just saw he disapproved of how ICE had been acting. Whether or not that tempered his support for the administration in general I cannot say.
I don't think their observations would even require such an evolution.
If public support among conservatives were at 15% or 85%, you'd see nearly identical output from the information sources they mention.
Jubilee videos would be full of the most goofball extremist people they could find, r/conservative would have enough people in the 15% to deter or actively suppress those who weren't (especially if the few moderators happened to be), the Fox News comment section would be packed to the gills with people in support, and Newsmax would be calling anyone not in the 15% a commie/RINO.
It's a totally absurd way to try to understand reality. The fact they suggest sampling from r/asktrumpsupporters (or r/peoplewhosupportClaimX) to understand how many conservatives support X is indicative of a fairly profound cognitive failure.
Note: This is not to suggest support among conservatives is actually in the 15% range. It's not. It's probably closer to 80% and with independents (and obviously Dems) overwhelmingly negative on the approach.
From before the Pretti murder, which flipped several conservatives I know personally, 23% of Republicans are saying ICE has gone too far:
Given that one half of this country openly states that it is OK to not provide medical care to anyone from the other political side [1] [2], I would not trust any polls. Many people would be unwilling to draw a target on their families' backs just to help some pollster.
The point is presumably to make an example of a few, and use that to deter future people from posting information about ICE officers, not to send everyone who oppose ICE to the gulags.
Not YET. But ICE's budget is now larger the military budget for most countries. They are spending billions developing sophisticated AI-powered surveillance tech infrastructure and building detention centers (aka, concentration camps).
When they run out of immigrants to deport, they aren't going to just sell all that crap on ebay. They're going to go looking for more targets.
Arbitrary cruelty is the point. There isn't a coherent rationale. You're going to the gulags if the subhuman pig in the mask says you are. You'll be lucky (?) if they don't just decide to execute you in the street. This is the reality on the ground right now. In a blue state in America.
You're using exactly the kind of dehumanizing rhetoric that the administration is using in order to justify their violence and inhumane treatment of immigrants. You might need to think about that.
Other than the quoted snippet, everything you said may be true. Still, don't dehumanize your opponents.
I fear they've burned the credibility they'd need for that to work. If they claim to have made an example of a critic, how do we know that was actually a critic – and by extension, how do we know that not critiquing them will keep us safe?
That's when loyalty becomes the new bar. Polarization makes everyone not supporting the regime an enemy. I don't see USA fully going down that slope, so I'm confused about what is the final goal. Maybe it's just a temporary whim of the executive and his backers.
Do you the think the EU and its individual country members from 1949 to present carried their fair share of the NATO spending ($55 to $60T), or troops and equipment deployments, or did they "default" on their side of the treaty? The US has paid 65 to 70% of the total of $1.4 to 1.5T/year from 2018 to 2025. That's 9.8T in 8 years (2018 included). Our soldiers, not theirs, carried the weight. If you go per capita, The US has spent an overage of $13 to $16T in 2025 dollars. Let's credit the account for that and see who owes who...
I'm pretty sure they all answered the call when the US invoked Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks, no?
> The US has paid 65 to 70% of the total of $1.4 to 1.5T/year from 2018 to 2025.
Are you suggesting that the US has paid over $1 trillion into NATO each year? That would be difficult because the US military budget has never crossed $1 trillion. The DoD budget is going to be $900.6 billion in FY2026. [0]
The share of the European countries in supporting NATO has been higher than the official numbers.
For instance, when the East-European countries have been admitted into NATO they were forced to pay dearly for this, with many billions of $ for various lucrative and overpriced contracts assigned to some well-connected US companies (e.g. Bechtel), either for various infrastructure projects or for military acquisitions.
Those billions of $ do not appear in the US budget, but they have enriched certain US businessmen.
It is normal for a regular US citizen to believe that NATO has not been beneficial for himself/herself, because this is true, but what regular citizens are not aware of is that NATO has been a great source of profits for some US citizens who are more equal than the others.
1. "The decision to invoke NATO's collective self-defense provisions was undertaken at NATO's own initiative, without a request by the United States, and occurred despite the hesitation of Germany, Belgium, Norway, and the Netherlands." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NATO_Article_5_contingenc...
2. "I helped pass the bucket when you were putting out that brush fire, and now you tell me you won't run into my burning house to save my children?!"
3. Mutual support is more like "I'll help you with your main adversary and you'll help me with mine". What we have now is "Fuck no I won't help you with your main adversary, we oughta stay out of it--wait, how dare you suggest you won't fight my main adversary for me?!"
You're counting the entire US military budget as "NATO spending" which is not a useful way to look at things. We only contribute roughly $800M to NATO's shared budget (about 16%)[1]
Also, from what I recall, the reason why US military budget appears so high is also because pensions for retired personnel (the highest invoice) are included in the military budget, whereas they are not e.g. in Italy where it's a different budget.
And it's pitiful that he has to be a Republican for people to credit him with sincerity. I think as much as partisanship itself, poisoning discourse by labeling appeals to evidence or procedural integrity as "partisan" proves too much and gets rid of objective reality entirely, creating space for bad faith actors.
I always appreciate when people make comments like this. It helps identify the trolls or people so completely outside of reality you can mark them as untrustworthy and ignore whatever they say.
It's also for very stupid reasons: The fed dropping rates to the degree that would satisfy Donald Trump would greatly accelerate inflation which in turn would further upset voters, who would in turn blame Donald Trump (just like they did Biden before).
Is it just a cynical view that enough voters can be convinced it's the other side at fault?
Someone who supports trump, please let me know the logic on this. Genuinely. I'm trying to read other places about these charges but they're just so slanted that they're not really trustworthy. Is there anything to this, or is it really just to pressure the federal reserve?
Exactly. He thinks he knows better than the experts. He thinks lower interest rates are good and people saying they should be higher are just trying to make him look bad. Nothing he does is a clever gambit.
This model makes the most sense to me. If you just model it as: Trump wants to do things that make Trump look good, everything he's done fits into it quite nicely. If you want to predict his next move, think to yourself, what does Trump think will make him look the best to his adoring supporters?
Logically, conquering Greenland makes zero sense and is only damaging to the United States. But to his supporters, it will make Trump look powerful and good. Which is why he's talking about it, and why I think there's a decent chance that he's going to do it. I just hope there are enough sensible people left in his idiocracy cabinet to stop him.
I implore you to stop being credulous before it's too late. Trump supporters deeply believe, and are not shy about saying, that anyone who stops Trump from achieving his political goals should be imprisoned or murdered.
I have a family member like this who I interact with almost every day. When Renee Good was fatally shot in the face three times this family member said that she deserved it for "getting in the way" and that if she just ignored them she wouldn't have been murdered. With all of the video recordings that have come out and been extensively disseminated, pretty much everyone knows that she moved out of the way and stopped, and it was Jonathan Ross who initiated the encounter. There is no way to "get out of the way" and "ignore them" when armed figures enact force on whims. But people like my family member believe that these armed figures direct violence towards those who are dangerous rather than simply directing violence to anybody who is close enough to hurt. You cannot reason with people like that because they retroactively justify any harm in order to protect their belief in the systems of enforcement. To them order and structure are more important and valuable than agency and safety or in some cases even life itself.
Conservatives all over have 1 disease. They are incapable of abstract empathy. Until it personally happens to them, or someone very very close to them, they are incapable of noticing injustices or hurts.
That isn't true -- they just prioritize a different set of hurts. To be similarly reductive, leftists seem to only be able to sympathize with criminals and poor decision makers -- not crime victims, or hard workers. The leftist perspective just ignores individual agency.
Interestingly, in all my volunteering experience with the homeless and also hurricane relief in Tennessee/North Carolina, there were many conservatives there helping alongside us, in many instances most of of them - assuming so as they were from Christian churches and organizations. This is an anecdote of course, so please correct me if you have actual statistics that prove conservatives are incapable of empathy.
My theory is that there are a whole lot of really good people in the middle, with the extremes on each end having some brain issues with empathy and whatnot. To cast such a wide blanket on conservatives doesn't seem like critical thinking to me and will not help anything.
And right now many have posted “lock him up” on Twitter in response to this news. Many of these users probably couldn’t describe the federal reserve or share anything at all about Powell. Their cult zealotry continues.
If citing the behavior of the most rabbid supporters is allowed (because that's who shows up to campaign rallies), then it's not hard to find an equivalent on the left. /r/all is full of people wanting various people in the epstein files, including trump, to be locked up on spurious associations.
Is there some well of non-rabid Trump supporters that I'm not aware of? I'm always open to the idea that I'm in a bubble, but my experience is that even the least rabid Trump supporters are completely unwilling to criticize him or oppose something he wants. Did any Trump supporters, for example, criticize the prosecution of James Comey?
>Is there some well of non-rabid Trump supporters that I'm not aware of? I'm always open to the idea that I'm in a bubble, but my experience is that even the least rabid Trump supporters are completely unwilling to criticize him or oppose something he wants.
In the context of the previous comment, the "non-rabbid" (and probably median) supporter would be someone voting Trump because they think they trust him more on the economy/immigration or whatever. They might be indifferent to his claims that he'll lock up his political opponents, or think that they're actually guilty of something, but that's not the same as being "rabbid" (ie. showing up to rallies and chanting "lock her up").
There's a difference between supporters and "the people who, in a single election, voted for him". The former tend to be pretty rabid and unmovable. Some portion of the voters are less firm in their support.
Right! With a non-fascist politician, what you're describing would be extremely abnormal; the median Biden supporter, Obama supporter, or Bush supporter would routinely take positions their guy didn't agree with even though they supported him overall. But the range of Trump supporter opinions stretches only from "politely support everything he wants to do" to "be performatively mean about everything he wants to do".
>But the range of Trump supporter opinions stretches only from "politely support everything he wants to do" to "be performatively mean about everything he wants to do".
You're basing this off... what? You're missing the options of "I'm indifferent about this", or "I don't agree with him on this but still think he's better as a whole than the alternative".
I'm missing "I don't agree with him on this" because I don't hear Trump supporters say that. Trump doesn't allow them to - he thinks it's wrong for anyone to disagree with him and illegal for anyone to try and stop him from doing something he wants to do. Again, the whole context here is that Trump is trying to jail one of his own appointees for failing to enact his preferred monetary policy.
Locking people up for crimes is different from locking them up because they are your political opponents. I don't think I've seen people on the left yelling about locking Mitch McConnell up, for instance, even if he bears much responsibility for all of this.
I think that's the point. None could name a crime, and that didn't matter.
Meanwhile, 34 actual felony convictions, court finding misuse of millions in charity funds, an attempted coup, being found liable for sexual assault, SCOTUS having to formally place the president above the law to avoid prosecution... none of it even moved the needle for those same folks.
>I think that's the point. None could name a crime, and that didn't matter.
From a 10s skim on wikipedia:
>Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well as State Department protocols and procedures, and regulations governing recordkeeping.
I'm not saying those allegations are true, but to claim "none could name a crime" suggests you didn't even try.
>Meanwhile, 34 actual felony convictions, court finding misuse of millions in charity funds, an attempted coup, being found liable for sexual assault, SCOTUS having to formally place the president above the law to avoid prosecution... none of it even moved the needle for those same folks.
It's clearly a rationalisation. Nobody is rabidly averse to private email servers and calling for prison for every politician who used a private email server. It's Hillary specifically.
Whereas everyone thinks that all child rapists should be in prison!
> It's clearly a rationalisation. Nobody is rabidly averse to private email servers and calling for prison for every politician who used a private email server. It's Hillary specifically.
I think the world would be a better place if politicians with access to critical information were held to suitable security requirements under threats of punishment for laxity.
This would absolutely also include Hesgeth inviting a journalist to an airstrike planning meeting on Signal.
And likewise Trump putting boxes full of state secrets in a disused bathroom and on a stage.
The Trump administration are clearly hypocrites, clearly trying to throw the book at everyone else while bemoaning even the slightest consequences for themselves. I wouldn't call for Clinton's arrest, but I will say that anywhere that would arrest her should've given a much more severe punishment to Trump.
Then again, I'm not even American so I genuinely don't actually care if y'all leak state secrets like a basketball net leaks water.
I know many. They’re good people. But they’re willing to be indifferent to violence if the perpetrators are not on their team. Everyone does this to some degree, but their tendency to align on messaging is much higher than e.g. folks going at each other about their pet war.
They put a great deal of effort into talking about political violence and implying that Democrats are a source of rioting and terrorism. The indifference is only to their own violence.
I consider January 6 to have falsified all research along these grounds. I acknowledge, sure, that virtually nobody wants to see gun battles in the street. But if you can talk yourself into believing that a mob sent to overturn the election and install the loser doesn't count as partisan violence, you can talk yourself into believing all kinds of catastrophes don't count.
>But if you can talk yourself into believing that a mob sent to overturn the election and install the loser doesn't count as partisan violence, you can talk yourself into believing all kinds of catastrophes don't count.
How's this different than say...
>polls show 99% (or whatever) of people are against crime
>voters elect a soft-on-crime politician, crime goes up
>"I consider the fact that the soft-on-crime politicians got elected to have falsified all research that people are against crime"
It's not different. If my city elected a mayor whose buddies committed a robbery 4 years ago, and his first act in office was to parole the robbers, I would be incandescently furious and definitely say that anyone who supports him is pro-crime.
> It is. What's more, such support is roughly the same across both parties, but both parties vastly overestimate the other side's support.
The difference between the two parties is that one elected a leader that agrees with that minority. This 2012 scene from The Newsroom outlines the difference:
This response is funny to me, because there’s been a massive drop in rightwing violence in the US since Trump was elected… but that’s because state-sponsored violence isn’t counted towards the statistics.
Pretty funny how there aren’t any more Proud Boy marches, yeah? Couldn’t be that they’re all getting paid six figure salaries to round up brown people at Kavanaugh stops…
But yes. Most left wing thought leaders count state-sponsored violence as political violence, and that often includes the death penalty.
>This response is funny to me, because there’s been a massive drop in rightwing violence in the US since Trump was elected… but that’s because state-sponsored violence isn’t counted towards the statistics.
>Pretty funny how there aren’t any more Proud Boy marches, yeah? Couldn’t be that they’re all getting paid six figure salaries to round up brown people at Kavanaugh stops…
Yes, that's how protests typically work. If things are going your way, you stop protesting. Nobody is protesting for gay marriage in California because they already won.
I don’t want to assume your politics, but saying that the group of people calling for racial purity and ethnic cleansing don’t find it necessary to protest anymore because things are going their way is very much not a good sign.
Fucking wild. You can't get more mainstream opinion than this guy. Trump regularly has phone calls on air with this person, he's isn't a random someone on TV. He is one of the administrations goto mouthpieces for communicating this administration's policy on the largest news station. They are workshoping/normalizing MURDERING UNDESIRABLES on their MAINSTREAM MEDIA by hosts that the president ROUTINELY USE TO BROADCAST HIS MESSAGE. My point is THEY ARE OK WITH KILLING PEOPLE THEY DON'T WANT. A meak 'my bad' doesn't mean shit.
And you waive it away. 'Bro said my bad dude, what more do you want? You think he shouldn't be an administration mouthpiece just because he wants extra-judicial killing? Cancel culture'. You are literally Martin Niemöller:
"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist"
...
He was literally you. He justified their calls for 'only killing Communists and only because they are bad and want to do bad things....' just like you.
I don't think this addresses the main point of my question, though. Do you know any prominent Democrats, e.g., representatives, senators, or presidents, who have called for a Republican to be killed?
> "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!!" Trump went on. "LOCK THEM UP???" He also called for the lawmakers' arrest and trial, adding in a separate post that it was "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH."
So more broadly, calling for any sort of capital punishment is also "political violence"? Even if you're against capital punishment, comparing it to something like Charlie Kirk getting shot is disingenuous. When people think of "political violence" they're thinking of the former, not capital punishment. Lumping the two together is like "do you support criminals? No? Why do you support Nelson Mandela, a convicted criminal?"
> calling for any sort of capital punishment is also "political violence"?
No, of course not, but I'm sure you knew that, hence constructing this straw man so you can knock it over and claim victory.
However, and more to the actual point, calling for capital punishment strictly because you disagree with the factual words someone chose to write might reasonably be considered "political violence". Especially when the words in question clearly call out your potential political intentions and remind people that said intentions can be battled in a particular way.
Fox News, a major American media company, had one of their main personalities say that homeless people should just be killed by lethal injection on air. The desire for killing for random reasons is so mainstream to them that their media is comfortable stating out loud people they don't want/are undesirable should just be killed. Their media organs are workshopping/normalizing killing undesirables.
I don’t know if you truly mean that or you’re just being glib. But if you’re serious, I’d strongly urge you to get help or just talk to someone you know and trust; even if you disagree on a lot of things.
All of the Trump supporters I knew in meatspace reassured me that he would never do his insane tariffs, and then when he did insisted that it was a good idea and they never thought otherwise. So I no longer trust that they're telling me the truth about what they want or what they would support.
Maybe eight years ago. But in my experience, Trump supporters today have no line he can cross which will cause them to stop supporting him. They might claim to, but time after time, they just find a way to justify and double down.
If you genuinely believe that, then I have some hope that the very toxic messages I see daily in political social media, saying exactly what's being alleged here, aren't deeply held beliefs but a tiny fringe.
I don't support Trump but I see the reasoning him and Bessent have. They want to lower the interest rate so that they can also drop the rate at which they issue debt/treasuries. They seem to think they are too financially constrained but will bankrupt themselves even faster if they hold big treasury auctions at today's rates.
It'll also lead to the general public feeling inflationary impacts. I think the government would cut relief checks to mitigate this and stir public sentiment their way, but it probably wouldn't be enough to maintain current standards of living.
I continue to be surprised by people who have seen things unfold as they have over less than a year of this administration and still somehow believe we'll continue to have "free and fair" elections anytime in the near future.
We have over, and over again seeing virtually all of the "checks and balances" we learned about as kids being overridden without consequence.
This community of all other should be aware of how easy it is to exert total control of information (I'm still surprised this article is on the home page). Everyone consumes almost all of their information through digital, corporate controlled means. Even people getting together a organically socializing in bars, something that was common 30 years ago, has been replaced with online interactions. Trump does not need mandate from the people to continue to rule the country.
> Trump Regrets Not Seizing Voting Machines After 2020 Election: In an interview, the president said he should have ordered the National Guard to take the machines
We've had a number of free and fair elections in the past year, including some where the Trump-supported candidate lost. That doesn't mean we're out of the woods, but Trump has not historically been willing to go out of his way to protect the electoral fortunes of people who aren't himself, and at least some of his allies are well aware that the peace and security we presently enjoy is not guaranteed in a post-democratic US.
When it comes to harm on this scale, always expect the worst, because the harm will be generational. More importantly, Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about anything outside of the executive branch and below the federal level, because the federal level executive has control of the instruments of war. And he has already proven that nobody manning those instruments of war will disobey him. The Marines got recalled, but the National Guard didn't. This latest thing with Venezuela is just one more section of the window that's been wiped clear enough for him to see what he can do. The final bit that's still obscured is whether or not he can give direct orders to the military and security agencies to subjugate the state levels of government. I've got a large amount of certainty that within the next week or two even that bit of obscurity won't remain.
As I always tell people, if you're right there's no point in arguing about it, so the only thing I would say is that you owe it to yourself to check your predictions. Set a reminder for January 25 to confirm whether Trump has ordered the military and security agencies to invade any state capitols. I did this a few times last year, and immigration policy is really the only topic where the "expect the worst" heuristic has worked for me.
My personal belief is that he will try it and it will fail, but that will of course lead to the Coast Guard and the National Guard being rescinded from the DHS and governor's control by decree and being placed under the Navy and the Army respectively. Currently this power exists in theory, but it's never truly been implemented, even during World War II. This is something that Hegseth publicly considered when West Virginia's state Congress decided that the extended deployment of the state's National Guard troops to Washington D.C. was not within presidential power and ordered them back.
blame Donald Trump (just like they did Biden before)
Respectfully disagree. Republican presidents get a lot more economic leeway than Dem presidents, especially from the media. This has puzzled me my entire adult life. Inflation will bother media and public, but not to the same extent it did 2021-22.
Big media works for the capital class, community newspapers and other forms of local news that are largely pro-public have been gutted. The remaining large-ish public media orgs (PBS, NPR) are currently under attack to consolidate corporate-friendly agenda-setting.
Case in point, you’d think by how things are reported that Trump brought down inflation. But inflation was down when Biden left office and Trump has done nothing to improve it.
Im not convinced Trump cares anymore. For whatever reason that may be, he has decided there is nothing that can stop him at this point. There is no congress or court that will hold him accountable. His supporters are unwavering and drunk on unchecked power right now.
especially as if the risk premium for the US increases because of the methods used to challenge Fed independence, the rates that truly matter, treasury yields, will increase causing limiting how much consumers can actually benefit from lower headline rates
The MAGA crowd and their lickspittles/enablers are so far removed from reality that they only believe their leader.
And many others will vote for system-wreckers (broadly: conservatives) again, because the democrats cannot fix much of the damage done within the next legislative periods, let alone just one... even if the miracle of a trifecta happens and SCOTUS loses its majority on top of it. Rinse, repeat.
These are the very people who would help him rewrite history that yes he indeed did earn the Nobel Peace Prize as it is obviously and prominently displayed in his office, the words and records of the Nobel committee be damned.
the problem is that our urban planning is so F@#$ed that taking away someone's ability to drive is tantamount to sentencing someone to poverty. In most of the country, you are completely dependent on a car to hold down a job, get groceries and pretty much anything else. In most other countries, not having a car is a mild to moderate inconvenience you can work around.
That's not a good reason. Other forms of criminality and reckless behavior don't get this kind of extreme leniency.
People shouldn't have their license taken away over 1 speeding ticket but there need to be escalating punishments that include license suspension, community service, jail time. If someone works their way through all of these and still ends up speeding then they can't be trusted to drive a vehicle on public roads.
Drivers licenses in most if not all of the U.S. are a joke, and people will still drive with suspended licenses, especially if they have to for work. Driving on a suspended license should allow the state to impound your car, though, then it would be respected.
Jail time should also be considered too, for repeat offenders.
Cars are a weird sort of thing, where they both are the justification for a surveillance state and lots of monitoring, but we also have extremely lenient penalties. It's difficult for me to understand how the US arrived at our current set of laws.
Why do we care about this type of sentencing to poverty and not every other way we condemn our citizens to poverty, homelessness, starvation, and death?
Maybe that shouldn't be the only alternative in our society
The alternative is that we invest in better public transport and walkable infrastructure. then we can both increase penalties for driving badly AND raise the bar for getting a drivers license in the first place.
AFAIK, all evidence says that people don't consider consequences. If they did, they wouldn't be behaving like that in the first place. Punitive punishment feels much much better for people who have a specific set of values.
Yes, it works. The state that I used to reside in has draconian DUI/Traffic laws, and not coincidentally low traffic death rates.
Driving with license revoked or suspended was a serious charge and resulted in impound of vehicle and mandatory jail time. Repeat offenders would have their vehicles seized.
DUI laws similarly brutal. 2nd time offenders faced potentially life-altering charges and penalties. Get into an accident with injury to another person while DUI? Huge jail time. Felony DUI results in permanent loss of driving privileges.
Speeding 20 over the limit? Enjoy your reckless driving charge which is as serious a dui charge.
I read that getting a license back after a 2nd dui carries and average cost of $50k. Getting 2 dui's within 10 years automatically bumped 2nd dui to felony....no more driving for you.
Lax driving laws and penalties do nothing more than get a lot of people killed.
I mean to your point, when someone is robbing a 7/11, in today's atmosphere, no - no they don't consider it because the punishment is fairly low. In Islamic countries, if you steal you will likely lose your hand (or your head). In those countries people REALLY do consider the consequences.
Now I'm not advocating for the second option there. Just something in between. (obviously a lot farther away than the second option).
If my choice is jail or relocate and find a new job and home in a city with passable public transit (even if its just the bus) I know which one I'd pick.
The modern world is so cat centric people would rather drive without a license than accept to live without a car. And until you can reliably catch and jail license-less drivers, the bet is worth it for them.
If they were to catch and jail just 1% of license-less drivers, in a visible way, it would be a deterrent to the other 99%. But the rate of being caught & punished is negligible (at least in the states I've lived in) so people know they'll get away with it.
I previously lived in a country where the cops set up random roadblocks to check everyone's license & registration and look for signs of intoxication. When there's a real risk of waking up in a jail cell you're less likely to order that third beer. But in the US when renewing my tabs I feel like the joke's on me because half the cars here seem to have expired tabs or illegal plates and nobody ever checks.
> If they were to catch and jail just 1% of license-less drivers, in a visible way, it would be a deterrent to the other 99%. But the rate of being caught & punished is negligible (at least in the states I've lived in) so people know they'll get away with it.
1% is actually negligible, and would not have a deterrent effect. In fact I wouldn't even be surprised if the effective prosecution rate was somewhat higher than this already.
> I previously lived in a country where the cops set up random roadblocks to check everyone's license & registration and look for signs of intoxication.
I live in a country (France) where this is still the case, and where driving crimes are the second source of jail time after drug trafficking, yet alcohol is still the #1 cause of death on the road, and an estimate 2% of people drive without a license after having lost it (and are responsible for ~5% of accidents).
Alcohol will likely always be a factor in the worst accidents. But France is doing something right because your fatal accident rate per capita is one third that of America's [0].
It's not France in particular though, America is the outlier among developed nations. In fact France is a bit behind most other European nations (but not by much).
How much of a deterrent can the police possibly impose that would outweigh the deterrent for not driving illegally, which (in your country) is being starving and homeless?
The cops will never deter everyone from breaking the law, but they don't have to. They just need to deter a large enough % of the population to have a positive effect.
Driving while intoxicated is not a crime of desperation. Even celebrities are often caught for DUI despite being able to afford a full-time limo driver.
Most people who drive intoxicated have jobs and reputations they'd prefer to keep, and families at home they would rather not be separated from or have to explain an arrest to.
And to be clear, we can't solve all the problems with a single measure. I'd like to see not just better law enforcement, but also a social safety net that ensures nobody is ever starving or homeless.
The crime under discussion is not driving while intoxicated but driving without a license.
But if you're going to bring that up anyway, how are people supposed to get their car home from the bar in a place where the government hates public transport?
>But if you're going to bring that up anyway, how are people supposed to get their car home from the bar in a place where the government hates public transport?
An anecdote related to me by a former (Florida) county sheriff's deputy answers that question:
Many police will stake out bars around closing time, awaiting the intoxicated to get behind the wheel so they can be stopped, breathalyzed and arrested.
However, patrons were aware of this and the deputy saw a patron leave, stumbling, drop their car keys several times, then get into their car and drive away.
When stopping said individual, the breathalyzer and field sobriety test showed the driver to be stone cold sober. As such, the deputy sent the driver on their way.
Returning to the bar parking lot, he found that all the other patrons had departed while he was wasting his time on the one sober person -- dubbed the "designated decoy."
I'm sure other variations are and have been in use in the US for a long time -- since most places don't have public transportation or reliable taxis.
The "cars first, public transit last, if at all" culture in most of the US makes the likelihood of DUI/DWI and crashes/injuries/fatalities much, much worse.
> The crime under discussion is not driving while intoxicated but driving without a license.
How did these people lose their license in the first place? The most common reason is DUIs. Followed by multiple instances of reckless driving. People are less likely to lose their license to begin with if they know there will be real consequences.
And there's a large enough population for whom driving without a license is not a crime of desperation. In many places there _is_ a public transport alternative (even if its slow and crappy). I used to give a lift every day to a colleague who had lost his license. I enjoyed the company and he paid for my gas. Many people can make an arrangement like this.
> But if you're going to bring that up anyway, how are people supposed to get their car home from the bar in a place where the government hates public transport?
Having been in this position many times: take an Uber, then Uber back to get your car the next day and plan better (or don't drink) next time.
>How did these people lose their license in the first place? The most common reason is DUIs. Followed by multiple instances of reckless driving. People are less likely to lose their license to begin with if they know there will be real consequences.
When I was in college in Ohio, one of my suite mates had several DUI arrests. After the first, his license was suspended -- yet he was allowed to drive to/from work/school because public transportation was minimal. After the third DUI, he was sentenced to 30 days in jail -- served on the weekends so he could continue going to school without interruption -- and still drive his car to/from work/school.
I was flabbergasted by that. But I guess that's how things are often handled in places without public transportation. And more's the pity.
Am I? The second paragraph is about how to get around legally if you don't have a license. First and third paragraphs are about not making the bad decisions that you get into that situation in the first place (prevention is better than cure). What am I missing?
This thread is about driving without a license, but from the perspective of enforcing the laws to keep unlicensed drivers (who are generally more dangerous) off the roads to make the community safer. The point I'm trying to make is that while yes its unrealistic to expect 100% of unlicensed drivers to stay off the road (for reasons you have outlined), there is a large enough % of unlicensed drivers for whom visible law enforcement would be a deterrent and that would at least be an improvement over today.
They still do this. The difference is, in my experience, is that parents are totally cool with their kids cheating. I've overheard parents openly mention it at line-up at school.
Hate to say "back in my day" but even as a millennial raised by laid-back parents I'd have been in deep shit if I cheated.
> To me, any software engineer who tries an LLM, shrugs and says “huh, that’s interesting” and then “gets back to work” is completely failing at their actual job,
I don't understand why people seem so impatient about AI adoption.
AI is the future, but many AI products aren't fully mature yet. That lack of maturity is probably what is dampening the adoption curve. To unseat incumbent tools and practices you either need to do so seamlessly OR be 5-10x better (Only true for a subset of tasks). In areas where either of these cases apply, you'll see some really impressive AI adoption. In areas where AI's value requires more effort, you'll see far less adoption. This seems perfectly natural to me and isn't some conspiracy - AI needs to be a better product and good products take time.
> I don't understand why people seem so impatient about AI adoption.
We're burning absurd, genuinely farcical amounts of money on these tools now, so of course they're impatient. There's Trillions (with a "T") riding on this massive hypewave, and the VCs and their ilk are getting nervous because they see people are waking up to the reality that it's at best a kinda useful tool in some situations and not the new God that we were promised that can do literally everything ever.
I've been at this long enough to see that today's best practices are tomorrow's anti-patterns. We have not, in fact, perfected the creation of software. And the your practices will evolve not just with the technology you use but the problem domains you're in.
I don't mean this as an argument against LLMs or vibe coding. Just that you're always going to need a fresh corpus to train them on to keep them current... and if the pool of expertly written code dries up, models will begin to stagnate.
reply