not at the current employee and costs. But do they need to do that? Do they need to produce new products (and pay the cost to do so)?

Why can't they be lean and mean? Focus purely on browser experience without any BS, without any upsell? And there are volunteers out there that willingly contribute code/fixes for free.

The fix, imho, is for the reviewers to also use ai to review the code. However, the ultimate responsibility for the outcome(s) should be on the committer - you commit it, you own it, so to speak. If there's an incident, they need to be the one paged in the middle of the night. Bugs resulting from it will land on their desk.

The reviewers aren't a shield/safety net.

it's not a bad idea from the POV of said "rulers" - more surveillance and control on the population is desirable (to them).

this agreement between spacex and google can be cancelled with 90 days notice from either party without the other's agreement.

It's purely there to make the IPO look good, on google's part.

that may be true, but in the US, you get shot?

that was what normally would happen. However, in the last few decades of IPO, it's become common to have two classes of shares - one being the controlling shares that founders hold on to (with 10x the voting rights), and a 2nd class of ordinary (common!) shares with 1x vote per share.

This means the founders (and early investors perhaps) don't give up any controlling stake of a company at all when the IPO while only selling common shares. Doing this means they get to control the company's operations and financial moves, without shareholder oversight, but obtain all of the shareholder investment cash.

You could argue this can lead to better management, as the founders are more likely to care about the company than professional managers that typically would be hired to manage a public company. I say that is only an argument of luck of the draw, rather than a good argument against the above share and voting right splitting.

Look at facebook/meta - would that company be as invested in things like the metaverse, etc, if zuckerberg weren't in a controlling position?

so the problem is CSS isnt it?

The constraints and flexibility of CSS makes it difficult to make a simple outcome easy to specify in similarly easy CSS.

Not sure what the solution is - there's no possibility of stopping students using AI to complete their homework/assignments etc. But let me flip the question - do they need to be stopped? Why not let them fail at the exam? As long as the exam acts as a filter, their usage of AI to "cheat" their learning is inconsequential to anyone but themselves.

Fortunately, this only affects indices that follow nasdaq, and from what i know, no other index is following this. That means it's "safe" to purchase a globally diversified, cap weighted index fund (safe as in the float isn't manipulated).

People talk of the demise of passive investing due to this, but most of the commentary fail to mention it's a specific, nasdaq thing and not a general change.

but that doesnt mean any money gets recovered at all. Musk sure as hell aint giving anything back.

The fix is to simply not buy it - those 401k aren't completely passive, you can choose a different investment (instead of NASDAQ index).

turnstile is not a public good, it's a private product, promoted to private entities that want to achieve a certain outcome that is beneficial to them privately.

The mass surveillance is a side-effect - an externality that cloudflare does not have to pay for (but we as netizens pay collectively).

It is the role and responsibility of gov't to regulate away externality (or make those who benefit from it pay a cost somehow, to equalize said externality). Unfortunately, like with climate change, nothing has been forthcoming, and only a few people care about the actual damage enough to even talk about it.

So it will go on, and the masses do not have a say.

    ...
    I played with your heart
    Got lost in the game
    Oh, baby, baby
    Oops, you think I'm in love
    That I'm sent from above
    I'm not that innocent

i think this is a very large assumption.

What if in the future, AI models are as guarded as nuclear weapons? Because why doesn't this argument apply for nuclear weapons, but does for AI?