> against Stockfish 18, this new release brings an Elo gain of up to 44 points, and wins more than three times as many game pairs as it loses.

The CEO is responsible for what their company does. If a major breach can occur through the oversight or "incompetence" of one worker, the CEO has already failed, whether through negligence or malice.

On average, probably not that much. What's the amortized cost of all testing, static analysis, and audit / code review, per "prevented potential bug"?

In any context, this is about as trivially false as any non-tautological statement can be.

Touche. Though that's context you could've also included.

> Arguing against Nubank's achievement is like insisting on a flat Earth.

I'm not denying their achievement, I'm putting it in perspective. Having 100 clients for a consumer product doesn't mean a more successful business than 20 clients for an enterprise product. It is apples to oranges, for sure, but you're comparing startup growth in an underbanked region to the literal largest (by assets, outside China) bank in the world.

- There's not much correlation between tech stack and product quality, let alone market share.

- JPMC has ~$4.4T in assets vs. Nubank $75B ($0.075T).

You are not engaging in good faith. Obviously the point of the argument is that if you hire a personal chef, you are outsourcing the actual cooking and investing little to no time yourself on improving at cooking. Interpreting it as having more freedom to cook, and your contractor providing a service being your friend/teacher, is absurd.

And even in your contrived hypothetical, there's two basic issues. First, mastery can be highly specialized. Second, if you only ever did the trivial and repetitive to begin with, you never intended to improve.

> This Bruce Lee level misconception of "practice the same kick for a thousand times" is extremely outdated perspective on how people actually progress effectively.

This is another straw man. Nobody is promoting this meme that the only thing you need for self-improvement is mindless repetition. That doesn't even make sense, considering the actual topic is thinking for yourself instead of only using AI. The point is you can't get better at something without actually practicing, and "difficult" or "tedious" doesn't equate to "unimportant."

Only in a sense which is obviously not at all what's being discussed. If you hire a personal chef, have you gotten better at cooking? What about a nanny, have you gotten better at raising your children?

Of course automating some cognitive processes can free your time for other, more fulfilling aspects. But there's certainly no guarantee that that's the case.

> People are not calculators - all these simplistic takes are frankly insulting to human capability.

Funny example. Which do you think is more common, people who are innumerate because they believe using a calculator is sufficient, or people who are highly numerate and believe learning arithmetic was a waste of time?