Left out being nagged to death about other products and services microsoft thinks you should buy.

Of all the people I was worried about materially contributing to the mess, Charlie Kirk was pretty low on the list.

He said vile stuff, but he was not himself a wielder of power. His rhetoric and words had power, he did not. His death in this manner has given strength to that rhetoric and those words without removing any of his meaningful influence to the system.

Better that these folks suffer the fear of what they court, to have their own MAGA fanatics turn against them with violence that scares them, but leaves them largely intact to have them retreat from their position without becoming martyrs.

Now if some folks actively wielding the power in harmful ways meet some ends, I might have a little less mixed feelings about it.

I will confess to perhaps not celebrating, but appreciating the connection between his sociopathic stance on gun deaths and he himself joining a group he himself said we shouldn’t be so concerned about.

Yeah, worried about this and the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, and too much room for his death to be weaponized, like you say.

Would have much rather him taken a few to the vest from a handgun from a pissed off obviously MAGA person. Give him some pain and a good scare to have him realize personally just how risky the hornet’s nest is that he is stirring. Something that might be a close enough call for others to see without becoming a rallying cry and a clear link to the violence of the rhetoric without a chance to blame ‘the other’.

I will have empathy

How dare you dishonor his memory.

Or the neck hit was more chance. There’s an assumption that the shooter hit precisely where he was aiming, but it could have just been where the bullet happened to hit, close to the amining point, but not exact.

Yeah, without knowing context, you might think it’s someone admitting that we need gun control, but no, his point was that we shouldn’t care about the gun deaths so much…

Yes, but just like quality, the people in charge of money aren’t totally on top of security either. They just see superficially convincing tutorial fodder and start declaring they will soon be able to get rid of all those pesky people. Even if you convince them a human does it better, they are inclined to think ‘good enough for the price’.

So you can’t say “it’s no better than human at quality” and expect those people to be discouraged, it has to be pointed out how wildly off base it is.

One issue that remains is that the LLM doesn’t care if it is telling the truth or lying. To be a CEO, it needs to be more inclined to lie.

If, hypothetically, the code had the same efficacy and quality as human code, then it would be much cheaper and faster. Even if it was actually a little bit worse, it still would be amazingly useful.

My dishwasher sometimes doesn’t fully clean everything, it’s not as strong as a guarantee as doing it myself. I still use it because despite the lower quality wash that requires some spot washing, I still come out ahead.

Now this was hypothetical, LLM generated code is damn near useless for my usage, despite assumptions it would do a bit more. But if it did generate code that matched the request with comparable risk of bugs compared to doing it myself, I’d absolutely be using it. I suppose with the caveat that I have to consider the code within my ability to actual diagnose problems too…

Based on my experience, I’m skeptical someone that seemingly delegates their reasoning to an LLM were really good engineers in the first place.

Whenever I’ve tried, it’s been so useless that I can’t really develop a reflex, since it would have to actually help for me to get used to just letting it do it’s thing.

Meanwhile the people who are very bullish who are ostensibly the good engineers that I’ve worked with are the people who became pet engineers of executives and basically have long succeeded by sounding smart to those executives rather than doing anything or even providing concrete technical leadership. They are more like having something akin to Gartner on staff, except without even the data that at least Gartner actually gathers, even as Gartner is a useless entity with respect to actual guidance.

If that were him, then I suppose he could have stowed a gun in his perch at an earlier time when there was less scrutiny?

Or he could have been some sort of accomplice or witness.

If the shooter did good opsec, then Hegseth certainly wasn’t the shooter.

To be fair, he probably was constantly being cursed/hexed by someone or another.

Feel like I’m being gaslit, the more I try to use them the less confident I become in their utility.

I will confess it did help me cut through some particularly obtuse documentation to provide a rough example of what I wanted to do. It still totally screwed up the actual suggestion, but it at least helped me figure out some good keywords to dig into.

It occasionally saves me some tedium when I have to do something mindlessly tedious, but doing that usually also inflicts constant misguesses about what next.

But even when doing easy stuff they are falling over constantly, and that hasn’t been significantly improving.

Picturing right wingers armoring up in Baby Bjorns now…

It’s so strange. I’ve seen people who I had no idea who they were or what they prurported to believe and thought “that face looks a bit obnoxious” and lo and behold they are asshats as soon as they say anything…

But at least he’s dry

I get the viewpoint, but it did hit a bit differently when people that actively promote offensively hateful viewpoints and widespread gun availability incur the exact sort of expected outcome you’d expect from going down that path.

If you callously say murders are worth it to have guns everywhere, then this can be expected.

If he goes out of his way to stir up a hornets nest to try to hurt others in the area, then I’m not going to be too surprised that he gets stung.

Even as this should be a sign to tone down the rhetoric, a lot of them are doubling down with confrontational perspectives (well out of reach of the public mind you).

Heard this play out on NPR with them giving a right wing person a lot of platform to talk about how horrible it was for Charlie Kirk to be killed and what a good guy he was and the good things he did.

Despite getting a more than fair opportunity to present this viewpoint, they didn’t really inject anything vaguely tricky until he went off on political violence from the left. The interviewer then said something like “and of course you would condemn such violence regardless of political leaning”. He said sure, but only the left is really such a concern. Then she brought up the killings of those democrats and the hit list and he just lost it at how just terrible she was being. Dude you got every bit of an opportunity to be sympathetic and all you had to do was refrain from blindly accusing all left leaning folks…

It’s certainly possible, but so far the seemingly likely left motivated violence turns out to be right wing or just completely unhinged insanity.

Before they concretely held actual power, the far right might have glossed over their differences, but now that they have actual power, the unhinged people they were tapping into are turning on them for various reasons. Turns out extremism is not conducive to a long term stable movement.