I still can't wrap my head around the fact that the guy who made his campaing on ending wars the first thing he does after being elected changes the name from DoD to DoW and starts new wars.
But he didn't. That requires congressional action. The DoW is just a "secondary" name attached via executive order. Contracts still say DOD. The only reason people are saying "DoW" it is to appease certain forceful personalities.
Yes, surprising in a "I can't believe this is happening" way, not in a "this was unexpected" way. He made his campaign on ending everything. Diving headfirst into the first conflict he could with 0 understanding is the most expected thing that could've happened.
Americans consistently vote for less war and they consistently get more war. If they voted for more war I’m pretty sure they would still get more war. I think blaming the American public for these wars is a deflection from the actual mechanisms that instigate them. We are more governed by blackmail than we are by voters.
I do wish there was even more resistance though, war has been effectively pitched as costless or even as a boon. Perhaps if this war bites there will be more resistance to future wars. At the very least the Iran war being such a disaster may have saved us from a more costly war with China - which the US was and in some ways still is gearing up for.
> I think blaming the American public for these wars is a deflection
Where did I do that? There's no one to vote for that doesn't wage war.
But to say voting for Trump was voting for less war is plain ridiculous. You'd have to ignore his entire career. He is famously fickle, is not shy about lying, and abandons friends at the soonest opportunity. A rational person hearing him say "I will end the Ukraine war on day 1" would understand he's saying whatever he thinks sounds good.
I consider the marginal voter to be rather dim, credulous, and uninformed irrational actors.
Politics in a universal
suffrage democracy is the art of idiot whispering and Trump is a master of this art. I do believe that most of his voters genuinely thought they were voting for less war.
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that the guy was well known for being a liar and a charlatan and yet he was apparently the only politician Americans took implicitly at their word.
Like you'd think Americans would have learned after "read my lips, no new taxes" even if they somehow memory-holed Trump's entire first administration. But I guess not.
It is ridiculously hard to understand. I don't get it either. There's something about not just knowing they're a liar but constantly being told that? Trump benefits a great deal from friendly mass media.
Yes, i don't know why, but i can literally smell that its generated, but it doesn't matter.
Is there actually a term for every discussion about something code related turning into a debate about LLMs, just increasing the signal to noise ratio on the topic at hand?
And another step toward a world, where product managers/owners/whatever and other boring people can generate what they once needed creative, passionate and skilled people for. Go ahead, its just the natural evolution of extreme capitalism.
If we go one step further… this is why we buy stuff from other people and firms - because they specialise in stuff that we can then allocate resources on stuff that we are better at ourselves.
Henceforth the idea that all these SaaS firms disappear due to firms replicating their products internally is stupid.
No it isn't.
Performing fingerprinting on user's devices, to ultimately profit of financially or worse is misleading. Especially doing this while knowing the user isn't aware what this really means and just deciding it for them.
The headline is just an exaggerated way of saying what is really happening.
When a human is coding against a traditional API, it might be a bit annoying if the API has four or five similar-sounding endpoints that each have a dozen parameters, but it's ultimately not a showstopper. You just spend a little extra time in the API docs, do some Googling to see what people are using for similar use cases, decide which one to use (or try a couple and see which actually gets you what you want), commit it, and your script lives happily ever after.
When an AI is trying to make that decision at runtime, having a set of confusing tools can easily derail it. The MCP protocol doesn't have a step that allows it to say "wait, this MCP server is badly designed, let me do some Googling to figure out which tool people are using for similar use cases". So it'll just pick whichever ones seems most likely to be correct, and if it's wrong, then it's just wasted time and tokens and it needs to try the next option. Scaled up to thousands or millions of times a day, it's pretty significant.
There's a lot of MCP servers out there that are just lazy mappings from OpenAPI/Swagger specs, and it often (not always, to be fair) results in a clunky, confusing mess of tools.
It's really time that mainstream media picks up on 'agentic coding' and the implications of writing software becoming a commodity.
I'm an engineer (not only software) by heart, but after seeing what Opus 4.6 based agents are capable of and especially the rate of improvement, i think the direction is clear.
I would buy it instantly, if it would be a scientific calculator, ideally with RPN.
Oh and i would have used a LCD with amber on black.
reply