Jeff was a ACM Fellow in 2009 and published the massively influential MapReduce paper in 2004.

Documentation errors have always been an issue. They were when there were paper charts, or human transcriptionists, or when manually typing into the EMR, or when using speech recognition (which is AI/ML!) to do the typing for you.

Not all e-scribes use LLMs, but most of them do rely on ambient audio recordings for speech recognition, which nowadays runs entirely locally. That text then needs to be processed into your clinical documentation, and there are tons of ways to do that (including LLM processing).

The author has obviously never talked to clinicians or hospital administrators about the challenges of maintaining clinical documentation, and knows little to nothing about the reality of software that runs in clinical contexts.

Have you seen what that looks like in a hospital system?

Autopilot can be thought of better as "auto-aviate". That is to say, if there is already a navigation plan, the aircraft can follow that plan. Simple autopilots just keep the wings level, others can hold an altitude and change heading. More sophisticated ones can change altitude or even fully land the plane.

All of those things, however, require people to manage the "Navigate" part. "Aviate" is a deterministically solved problem, at least in normal flight operations. As you point out we trust autopilots today, including on (nearly) every single commercial flight.

LLMs are a poor alternative to "aviate", but they could be part of a better flight management automation package. The parent article tries to use the LLM to aviate, with predictable results.

If paired with a capable auto-pilot (not the relatively basic one on that C-172), the LLM could figure out how to operate the FMS and take you from post take-off to final approach and aid in situational awareness.

Currently, I don't think there is a commercial solution for GA aircraft that could say, "Ok, I'm 20NM from KVNY, but there are three people ahead of me in the pattern, so I have to do a right 360 before descending and joining downwind on 34L".

Having an LLM propose that course of action and tell the autopilot to execute on it definitely would be an improvement to GA safety.

https://medium.com/google-design/google-maps-cb0326d165f5

You've heard of the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Holding a hypothesis of water-vapor from air travel being the primary driver of warming trends is extraordinary.

Invoking the oft-repeated "do your own research" rhetorical crutch and referring to scientific consensus as "hype" doesn't help your case.

It's not even worth it to say why or how, since not even doing rudimentary research means that you aren't interested in developing a well-informed opinion.

Maybe we're of a different age to remember when Scott was super influential as a blogger / conference speaker, but even now he's not some random VP.

Mid-day sun in a clear sky is very white, in the 5k-6k color temperature range. It's hard to get a sense of how white it is because of how bright it is. In fact, the color temperature on the surface can be even higher than in outer-space!

Compare this to a "warm" light bulb, which is around 2.5K. Sunrise/sunset is also around that range.

Perhaps the "warm color" sun mindset comes from the only times that people can look directly at it. That is to say, around sunrise or sunset.

The officer chose to engage and close on the vehicle and chose to circle from the front. If the officer was concerned about being run over, they shouldn't have stood right at the bumper. The car was clearly in gear, moving forward was an obvious expectation.

Did the officer have an escape route? Obviously yes, since they only had to side step to avoid the car. Was there an exigent circumstance? No, the officer could have retreated and nobody else was clearly in harm's way. Was the driver clearly a threat? Again, no.

No, this was straight-up murder from a trigger happy psychopath.

I think you conflated flights (several 10Ks per day) with passengers (several million per day).

One in a million flights is one accident every few decades.

> at least in the US. Engines will fail

As per the report, this appears to be a structural failure, not an engine failure.

OP is asking what are the line-drawing characters encoded as e.g: "┌" and "┐".

Since the charset returned by the app is UTF-8, these will be interpreted and encoded as UTF-8 and not whatever "ASCII - Extended" means.

What about something like mdocx?

If that happens once and the restaurant makes good on the mistake, I wouldn't hold it against them.

Sending something back to the kitchen is a way better product analogy than food poisoning.

If you look at various definitions of what facism means, you may see something like: "characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition" (from M-W).

A "loyalty rating" implements both economic regimentation (the insinuation that higher scoring companies have better favor) and suppression of opposition (that companies actively avoid being seen as opposition).

So this is text-book fascist behavior.

It's not hyperbole to envision the justice department looking the other way for high-scoring companies, and actively persecuting low-scoring companies. You're right in that this is already happening (like with e.g. Harvard), but implementing a score in the open makes it shockingly easy to carry out fascist directives across the government bureaucracy.

It seems unfair to move to "not recommended" due to a single instance of a hardware failure, especially if the manufacturer made it right. And repair-ability is one of their core values!

At most this should've triggered a "this happened to me, keep an eye out if this seems to be a thing." note in the review instead of moving to not recommended.

"If you have any questions or requests, please mail me at wayne@larsen.st"