Jack of all trades, master of none, is oftentimes better than master of one.

You wouldn't download a CAR, would you? You wouldn't hack your own INSULIN pump, would you?

Face it: If it's GPL and vulnerable to interference, responsibility is squarely on the manufacturer and the fastest death-free way to prove it. If it's GPL and modified by the owner, fuck off.

If everything is information, then nothing is.

A disordered system still has state. You just don't know what it is.

Remember that Apple SSL bug "goto fail"? That was a whitespace bug, because even if the C feature predated python, everyone's eyes had been trained to slide right off that particularly crass shortcut as python was widespread by that point.

So what if "everyone in Seattle hates AI"? What gives The Author the right to simultaneously invalidate Seattle's comparatively immeasurably larger advantage in experience, qualification, and education? If even the ludicrously biased title had even the barest hint of truth to it, they've stacked the deck against themselves in credibility unless they've already mentally biased themselves to blindly dismiss anyone that doesn't mirror their own now blatant fanaticism. Which we've already established now includes all of Seattle.

So put this out on the curb with the rest of the garbage meant to inflame and divide, because on it's face it is neither reasonable nor factual.

  -- C. A. R. Hoare

The author might think they're being a meta-pirate by saying "oh these are all possible actions proscribed by most organizations" implying that the proscription itself is a sign of ossified incompetence, instead of identifying the underlying one-true-savior fallacy that underpins it all.

The general danger here is human error. The point of leveraging a collaborative environment is to design process to detect and remediate human error before it radiates outward into more cost. The farther it goes, generally, the higher the cost, non-linearly. It shouldn't be "never do this", but instead "if you're going to do this use every tool at your disposal to make sure it's done correctly." Siloing the entire decision tree to yourself is exactly how not to do it.

Did they, though? I ask because the vast majority of people touting LLM as a huge win usually seem to speak from a.. DK-heavy perspective. As in, the bulk of their profession experience hasn't actually been doing the subject they're gushing about the LLM crushing.

So I ask you, what is your level of devops experience to make such a dismissive, sweeping statement? I am pointedly inquiring about my own area of expertise, in case that wasn't clear.

This is a spectacularly, objectively invalid take.

Also, my pge statements now have a line item for transmission that's usually larger than my generation total. If I have 2x solar and I'm feeding my neighbor, are they paying the same "transmission" structure for the power I'm providing them?

Some of the most interesting aviation research in the past few decades have been around human factors like psychology, perception, and cognition. If there was some substantial effect to having the buttons be arranged in a different pattern, I do legitimately hope it would have been found by now.

Do keep in mind these devices are cost-prohibitive in the extreme to design, build, and certify. The idea of having separate, parallel processes in order to have a different button layout between regional devices creates a thousand headaches of its own, both before and after production. The issue goes even further, in that just the FAA alone requires simulators of these aircraft to have replicated button look and feel criteria that would make your head spin. Is there even going to be a question as to if you're going to have to have two simulators? Will type-ratings be transferrable? Will there be separate differences training and/or currency requirements between the two distinct input methods?

Some or even most of those answers might turn out favorably for manufacturers or operators or pilots. But just having to ask them drives costs up considerably.