1) All-knowing oracle which is lightly prompted and develops whole applications from requirements specification to deployable artifacts. Superficial, little to no review of the code before running and committing.

2) An additional tool next to their already established toolset to be used inside or alongside their IDE. Each line gets read and reviewed. The tool needs to defend their choices and manual rework is common for anything from improving documentation to naming things all the way to architectural changes.

Obviously anything in between as well being viable. 1) seems like a crazy dead-end to me if you are looking to build a sustainable service or a fulfilling career.

looks at his github see's he is a US college student

Yeah he's likely going to jail.

What was the Apple Dev account needed for? Previously I remember it was only needed for submitting apps to the App Store, not running Dev builds locally.

Whatever workflow lead to that?

Curiously backwards. That's one way of reframing a disadvantage as an advantage. The train connection seems to be 3h15m to 3h30m from Neuss train station to FOSDEM. A single connection for the long-distance train in Cologne, the rest is local public transport within Brussels.

(The OP may been /s without me realizing.)

While it absolutely makes sense to keep your important data backed up, I know people who were great academics in their field and yet managed to delete all their PhD work (before services like Dropbox and OneDrive became common).

Some concepts people try out using AI (for lack of a more specific word) are interesting. They will add to our collective understanding of when these tools, paired with meaningful methods can be used to effectively achieve what seemed out of reach before.

Unfortunately it comes with many rediscovering insights I thought we already had, badly. Others use tools without giving consideration to what they were looking to accomplish, and how they would know if they did.

Migrate to services you trust the most where it makes to you. Occasionally export data from all of them, more and less trusted, anyways.

There can be a discussion about the perverse incentives of systems without judging the individuals.

Is this likely? My overgeneralizing gut feel would be that more people who would have traits which might be perceived as unusual and impede survivability 4000 years ago would be more likely to receive a chance to live a regular lifespan in most today‘s societies.

There is also no place called „Gielenkirchen“. It‘s likely a typo of „Geilenkirchen“, which indeed does have a NATO base. But it is also at the German/Dutch border, while the article places it at the German/Polish border.

I am questioning the rest of the article based on these findings. They are straight-forward to check before publishing.