swat535
Anthropic has repeatedly shown it prioritizes pushing a set of values over building a general purpose tool.
Ironically, comments that reframe the issue as a legal one make the case for why regulating these companies. Else they can quietly impose their preferred ideology on users.
All the apps will likely have to be compatible with both modes as well moving forward.
Like if I were to sell PHP in 2026 to a new team, how would I position it?
Don't forget that US can always strong arm Canada and make it bend to its will. We are too dependent on them. It's nearly impossible to disassociate with United States due to our proximity.
The timeline has changed before, like the ASIC issues pushed full service into 2028. Also scale and capability obviously differ, but it could be a good starting point.
Regardless, I think Europe is better served focusing on its own tech like IRIS and Eutelsat.
My point is this: it's fine if you don't agree with their beliefs, you can simply ignore that part of the comment and reply to its essence. The parent wasn't trying to convince anyone to take a magic pill.
I disagree with many people here on various topics such as politics, philosophy or outlooks but never have the urge to attack them.
Most go to work, accept whatever policy the government decides is good for them, and don't push back as their living conditions decline. Given that, is it surprising that we don't see much activism?
I wish it was different but I don't know what to do. Perhaps Canadians should steal a page from the French?
Many of the courtroom customs were partly influenced by this. For example the Robes/gowns or the emphasis on "law as an absolute", higher standard that sits above personal feelings is also inspired from Christian natural law ideas (i.e rulers and judges under a higher law) even though those ideas were built on Roman foundations.
So the kind of person who can treat the rules as more important than their own feelings isn't that surprising in that tradition. It requires a certain bit of.. religiosity.
I wish we were living in a world were people could earn a living and follow their passion but capitalism doesn't allow for that. It's designed for consuming things and increasing profits, not for improving the well being of people.
I think that a two-party system is more vulnerable than a multi-party system however Yes parties can still form collations and push their agendas but it's more difficult.
You can see this in action in Canada for example.
Ideally, it would be the last resort in limited capacity when diplomacy fails.
Otherwise you're unleashing horrors on humanity.
For corporations, sales, probability and feature release cycles take priority over maintainability or code quality. AI is allowing businesses to build features faster than ever, so management is happy.
By the time maintainability issues hit, they've either pivoted, raised more capital or can throw money at the problem.
I have no idea where you work but 90% of companies are not like that. In fact, it's the opposite: filled with awful management, terrible timelines and legacy code.
Engineering had always been a nuisance to them and getting basic approval for maintenance regarding technical debt has been an uphill battle.
It's like the minds-eye or "hearing music", I can do those but only if I intentionally need them.
Experiencing something as a tourist for a few weeks or seeing its image from the sidelines is very different than living it permanently.
They already did the bare minimum allocation to both despite engineering screaming at them.
I highly doubt executives are going to accept slower release and sale cycles in order to provide better support.
If anything, I expect this trend to accelerate. I’m imagining the opposite, a plethora of AI slop with increasingly burned-out engineers.
Your end users certainly don't either, heck they'll gladly sit there and scroll through their phone until the 50GB React app loads.
Why would anyone trust these rent seeking corporations? They are losing millions, they know their funds are at risk, Chinese models are catching up to them at lower costs and investors demand returns.
It only makes sense for them to go for regulatory capture. They'll probably advocate for severe handicaps on foreign and domestic models including open source (if not an outright ban).
Once they achieve monopoly, they can do as they please with little competition.
The best thing you do is to just grow your network until you find someone you like.
Whenever I go out, I always collect phone numbers and contacts if I can.
Before you know it, you have 100s of people on your phone. Befriending women is also excellent, they can introduce you to other women if they feel like you are worthy!
The point is that those attacks would be (nearly) impossible if you have a truly passwordless system.
The point is that passkeys significantly reduce the attack surface.
The thread is about jankiness, lack of feature cohesion and code quality.
What we are discussing here is: is it acceptable to accept poor code quality and trade it off with delivery?
I'm not sure why you think it was a massive mistake? The taxi industry was awful and unsafe, food delivery for many local places was either not available or poorly implemented.
Also many whole food chains didn't have proper delivery for groceries.
In fact executives demand the opposite: token max to get the features out of the door faster, all in the same of closing that one last sale.