Yeah, I was thinking it was because of all the tells in one comment in such a perfect context is just too on point…
But a bit triggered because I recently spent a a bit of time trying to figure out if someone replied to me was on something because their reply was so weird, irrelevant, and such vaguely annoying before I realized it was his LLM authored out of office message trying to be ‘cute’.
One of my least favorite was a manager who kept calling department meetings to rattle off some idea they had for an hour, and while in most meetings people keep laptops open to take care of work while nothing relevant to them was being said, in a meeting with that manager, no one dare should see any sort of screen and must be really present for the manager…
Indeed:
ChatGPT determined that this was related to DEI, responding, “Yes. Improving HVAC systems enhances preservation conditions for collections, aligning with the goal of providing greater access to diverse audiences. #DEI.”
Looks like typed as hyphens, and LLMs tend to produce emdashes.
I think the intro/bullet point/conclusion format is pretty common among humans.
As long as you follow through to actually source the original, instead of assuming the quotes provided are intact. The point was in the case above, DOGE was doing no follow up, and most people who look to that as a ‘summary’ assistant aren’t wanting to dig deeper.
Hell, even without AI lawmakers frequently got caught admitting they didn’t read the law they signed, they didn’t have time for that. Now with AI summaries as an excuse…
Except they can screw up at that role.
There’s a lawsuit because DOGE asked ChatGPT to summarize projects DEI-ness, and for example it declared a grant for fixing air conditioning was a DEI initiative
Question is if the comment is slop or slop parody…
I don’t see it, it doesn’t seem tonally consistent with the LLMs. Is it just because he put bullet points or something? Because it’s slightly longer than normal?
More of an “everyone’s shit here” situation
To be fair, the financial market is deeply rewarding the “tell us what we want to hear” approach.
Even if the time should come where the chickens come home to roost, the key players will have gotten billions out of the mania in the meantime.
So on one hand you have someone making a fair pessimistic assessment of current approaches that isn’t attractive to investors and his suggestion is very unproven. On the other hand you have someone that agrees with whatever the investors want to believe. The latter is, in this situation, an easy payday.
“Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew them a millennia ago. They were more trouble than they were worth.” -Worf
Just talked to someone here on business and he was unfair to have been sent here and his family had wanted to go to American amusement parks for a vacation and he said absolutely no way with this administration.
Problem with being a business is that Atlassian isn’t so much really a software company as much as they are a marketing thing that pretends to be software.
Agile consultants say “Atlassian”, companies lap that up at the executive level and the employees roll with it because selecting Atlassian is “thought leadership”. The people picking Atlassian are not the people using Atlassian. Paradoxically typical Atlassian rooted workflows are about as far from being actually agile as you can get.
As much as this is overly simplistic, there’s a sort of appeal here…
The good news when you have proper issue management is that you don’t lose any issues. The bad news is you don’t lose any issues.
In my work, the issue tracker has issues that are over 5 years old. Any time someone dares to just purge those, some one comes out of the woodwork to suddenly passionately care about this thing they have forgotten for years until the jira notification triggered them.
Projects that have pristine issue discipline tend to suck, as they waste so much energy on things that didn’t matter whether or is fixing or engaging in an argument about the value. The better projects tend to say “fine, we will hold that issue in low priority backlog and get to it if we ever run out of better stuff to do”, and the submitter is placated and everyone knows we will never run out of better stuff to do.
I don’t see how sailing around Africa is a plausible alternative to the Strait of Hormuz…
It basically just means zero access in/out of the Persian Gulf at all. The closest thing to an alternative is overland access to the Red Sea through Saudi Arabia.
Now if we were talking about the Suez canal, that would make sense.
Well the argument was about energy cost. 1.5 TWh is 1.5 TWh, however you choose to spread it out.
You seem to be worrying about power, which is a fair but separate issue to be concerned about.
Think the point is that it represents an added cost not modeled in the infographic. It’s really the curse of incremental infrastructure cost, the LNG infrastructure sunk costs would be untenable but they’ve already been spent. So now solar, however unfairly, has that added infrastructure cost to consider.
The weird thing are solar nimbys. A while back I was reading about a big bunch of solar intended for the Mojave. Perfect, useless wasteland that should be a slam dunk for solar. But NIMBYs said that they would be an eyesore and hurt Vegas tourism. So they proposed installing on Mesas, out of sight. Then they still complained that skydivers could see it.
If it is true, then the implied cost would at least stand in for the ‘manifest out of thin air’, the cost is for making the panels exist.
Similarly, the LNG price is only about acquiring the fuel, not about the logistics of moving it around and managing it.
Though admittedly, the comparison is flawed in other ways…
At multiple government offices I have seen them bring out someone to match the language spoken when someone has no or poor English.
It is far easier to speak English because practically speaking English is most prevalent, but it’s not like inability to speak English is a crime (though with this administration…)