It also doesn't explain the regional correlations. If immigrants are objectively a problem, why is anti-immigration sentiment highest in regions with the least immigration?

Make it make sense...

Let's be real: this "issue" is a strawman. It doesn't really exist, especially in that part of Germany. Just like pretty much everywhere else, the German anti-immigrant far right is strongest in the areas with the fewest immigrants.

This is not to say that the wave of immigration that is now more than 10 years past didn't have its challenges, and they were downplayed by some.

But at its core, the immigration scare is just the classic playbook of offering simple but wrong explanations to distract from the class warfare that's being waged by the wealthy.

Ideally, we'd turn down the temperature and have patient conversations, but the media environment was made very counterproductive over the last few decades.

Democracy is built on the idea that people are equal and have equal rights. This is only sustainable if the power differential between people isn't too large.

Corporations consist of people, yes, but the power to control where the efforts of these people are directed is concentrated on very few people, giving those people a large amount of power -- so large that without any checks on their influence on government, it undermines democracy.

It's the same argument for why super-wealthy individuals are so problematic. They're literally destroying the fabric of democracy through the power imbalance afforded by their wealth.

Having a coding agent iterate on a well-defined narrow task in the background while I'm in a meeting or working on something else, and then doing a thorough, thoughtful, and active local code review (meaning, having an editor and the diff open side-by-side and liberally making edits to clean up the code) before pushing anything out for others to see feels like a reasonable point in the space right now. Nothing is perfect, but this style of active code review removes basically all AI smells in practice. The edit-build-test loop is fairly long (i.e., longer than a few seconds), so having AI babysit this loop for the initial development of a task is helpful.

The approach that GitHub chose can show those people almost immediate benefits, which is surely the better path towards adoption than trying to reeducate everyone to adopt a development flow based on clean rebases.

And for those of us who do prefer clean rebases, the thing they built is still useful.

A bunch of details aside, the major conceptual thing that the email based flow has which is still missing in GitHub's data model is the ability to have a discussion on the stack as a whole.

Again, not impossible, just picking your battles.

So, in order to write their own KMD, they'd either have to also write their own DX12 driver, which they probably have no interest in, or reverse engineer the existing AMD KMD interface to the point where they can reimplement it basically completely so that AMD's proprietary DX12 driver runs on it.

I doubt they're saying it's impossible, it's more of a pick your battles situation.

The other part of it ("ghosting" the cut) just seems like a matter of taste, and at some point you have to consider whether going against decades of established muscle memory in the users of your software is really worth it.

That said, it is a good idea to re-examine our assumptions every once in a while, so kudos for that.

We have no viable mechanism yet to get the same level of confidence if some LLM-based system writes the binary.

Perhaps we can get to a system that produces not just the binary but also a machine-verifiable proof that the binary implements some higher-level language description of the program.

Though then the question will be whether we've gained anything, or whether we've just replaced the compiler with something massively more expensive that does the same thing.

There's some potential here for the LLM-based system to drive better performance optimizations than a regular compiler could.

Of course this isn't what Elon is actually saying, and we'd be better off if fewer people listened to him.

Factories are places for the mass production of identical or nearly identical widgets.

There are some kinds of mass produced software, like the low value apps that lots of businesses want to have for some reason and that should have been websites instead.

But actual progress comes from software that isn't mass produced. So choose your ambitions wisely.

I agree that their use of "he" is likely because they're not a native speaker, especially because they're arguing against the capabilities of LLMs.

That doesn't make it inherently wrong to point out the mistake when it's so intertwined with the deeper discussion here, especially given the fact that some (hopefully few) people do build relationships with LLMs.

But I find it quite plausible because it feels like it's fundamentally "just" a restatement or a minor variation of the Church-Turing thesis.

My best software development experiences have been in cultures where this way of working was common.

It is a shame that these cultures are not more widely spread; and I mostly blame GitHub: the lack of good support for stacked PRs or patch series or whatever you want to call it makes it harder than it should be to work in this way.

But in addition to the raw numbers, you have to keep in mind that they don't account for cost of living and that different countries account for various services differently, especially health care.