Imagine a superhuman agent who does not need to run in endless loops. It could generate 100k line code-base in a few minutes or solve smaller features in seconds.

In a way, the inefficiency is what leads people to parallelism. There is only room for it because the agents are slow, perhaps the more inefficient and slower the individual agents are, the more parallel we can be.

The parents I've interacted with who have this worry tend to be the least tech/AI literate. It reminds me of the pressure some parents in my non-English speaking country place on kids and English teachers. Usually the parents who don't understand English well themselves and are full of anxiety about it.

Realistically, it's been just over 3 years since ChatGPT arrived and the paradigms shift every year. All of us had to learn on the go as adults, in a short time, and we did. So why worry so much about kids missing out?

UMA's current market cap is $68M. There are some Polymarket markets far exceeding that.

Doesn't this whole model break down when the Polymarket market far exceeds UMA's market cap?

The trend is definitely here, but even today, heavily depends on the feature.

While extra useful, it requires intense iteration and human insight for > 90% of our backlog. We develop a cybersecurity product.

I agree on this point, me not being anti-Nuclear doesn't mean I am anti-wind or solar. Every country has different circumstances, I live in a landlocked country with mild mountains, temperate climate and modest rivers. In our case nuclear energy seems like the most reliable and scalable option. For countries with huge coastline off-shore wind absolutely makes sense, simialrly with solar.

> Besides, CO2eq are often wrongly measured with nuclear energy, ignoring building emissions.

I think this point is overestimated. Based on a brief search, studies show nuclear carbon intensity around 6-12g, and the building emissions just around 13% of total lifetime emissions [1].

> there are again and again longer periods where Germany exports energy to France because their reactors are often in maintenance.

Valid point but the 2022 French nuclear "disaster" hasn't repeated at that scale so far. In recent years France is a net exporter to Germany. I can imagine that as with many problems in renewables having technical solutions the water temperature problem is also solvable technically.

[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/energy-research/article...

Also, what lessons learned in Iceland, Norway or Albania should we apply in central Europe? We don't have their geothermal and hydro potential (all your examples are not solar+wind but hydro primarily).

Even from an environmental standpoint, France is doing much better than Germany and that is thanks to nuclear.

Also, by closing operating power plants, Germany weakened European energy production at the time when we geopolitically need it the most.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min...

What I really love about it is the leverage. In a technical domain with a good core team it is almost like running your small company.

If you are in a bad position then change, but if you like the company and role, don’t take it for granted and think carefully.

This advice is consistent with the broad statistic if more than half of the sample is currently in “bad position”.

Not true, while Germany was not solely responsible, it and Austria-Hungary were much more responsible than others.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43256696

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

For context, EU+UK is over 500M people, Russia is 143M.

I think two weeks back many Europeans took for granted (at least I did) we would get involved in the Pacific theatre if needed on US side, but after what is happenning now… I am for not getting involved in any coflict in Pacific if US treats us this way.

They will probably not align with China but will naturally drift closer if they no longer see much difference between US and them.