There's a reason (several, probably) why you don't actually see cases of police arresting each other and then suing to enrich themselves.

A priori, it's not "40 days in jail == $800k payday", it's "some unknown number of days in jail and risk of a conviction in exchange for a chance at a payday of unknown value".

That all depends on how much he values his credibility, I think..

But to be fair, for someone as good at self promotion as he is, I can believe that the value of the hype could be greater than the cost in credibility.

I laughed out loud at the suggestion that rural Texans are reading Politico, or any other “elite media” for that matter. I say this as someone who has lived in TX for decades.

ETA: to be fair, I'm not saying that what you describe never happens, but no way is this an example of it.

I think traditional coding experience will be a lot more valuable in 5-10 years, given the apparent inverse relationship between that and LLM usage, and the number of people who seem to already be heavily reliant on LLMs today.

The next killer app on the scale of today's LLMs could be an LLM (or call it whatever) that can un-spaghettify the reams of code that are currently being generated by LLMs.

I guess you meant something more like "shows a causal relationship"?

Because they're already correlated, which I thought was the point..

For one thing they are required to disallow all undefined behavior for compile time execution, and some forms of UB only occur when the code is run.

However I've definitely noticed that the larger a ruby program gets, the more likely I am to manually add type checks. Beyond a certain size I simply can't fit everything in my head at once. Even though these checks are still done at run time, debugging is much easier when I can find out ASAP when something is not what I expected it to be.

People often say "that's what tests are for!". But if I'm spending time writing tests that verify the types are correct, I see that as a waste of my time because that's exactly the kind of thing that a compiler could do for me in a statically typed language.

He's using auto_ptr to demonstrate RAII, which is fine. I would assume that the use of auto_ptr indicates that the example was written some time ago.

Their stock price has been pretty volatile for a while now (6+ months), so even with a swing of this magnitude I don't think it's valid to see it as much more than a correction.

That's great that they're doing that, but it's absolutely not guaranteed, either in this particular case (prior to this announcement, i.e. when these people were hired) or in general.

But all of this ignores the more general point, which is that--for reasons which may or may not be their fault--some people are not in a good situation financially and for them being laid off is a big deal with very real risks. Just because that's not you doesn't mean it's not a real thing.

Given the rashness that he displayed prior to his second term, I don't see why it's at all surprising that he would start a war. To think otherwise just seems like wishful thinking.

    // There are a few ways to let API callers bring their own 
    // memory, as they would in a no-malloc environment and this
    // stack-friendly c'tor is a stand-in for that. 
    static Birthdate epoch() { return Birthdate(1900, 1, 1); }

To be fair, that bar is quite a bit lower these days, but still..