Hey this is much like that tribe from the other day that DID get addicted to porn. What a coincidence.
I've also heard of this one tribe heavily addicted to misinformation. They just can't get enough of it! They weren't even feral and naive to exposure, it somehow just... crept up on them.
The issue with what you write is that it's most all nonsense. Your core thesis doesn't pass the smell test at all.
Because you utterly ignore Finland. It's less that it's not NATO and more that it literally can't be. Why would Putin drive them into NATO if having NATO neighbors (which, besides, was already a fact anyways) is such a threat?
He views it as his rightful property, and that's that.
It's a very powerful autocomplete.
"It doesn't generate all the code I need in full and if it does I have to poke at it" is just poor criticism.
You don't have to press tab and insert everything it suggests. It will usually generate me half a line after typing the first half - that's pretty awesome in my opinion.
If you stick to using it to merely speed-spell out what you were in fact already in the process of writing, and ignore 90% of the terrible crap it proposes, it's a nice productivity boost and has no way to make code worse by itself.
Basically, instead of writing a big comment and then a function signature and expect it to do the rest, just start writing out the function, tab when it gets it, don't when it doesn't, or (most of the time) tab then delete half of it and keep the lines you intended, likely with some small tweak.
Surely LLMs will be able to go so much more and without constant supervision in the future, but we're not there. That doesn't mean they're bad. Especially copilot since it's just there with its suggestions and doesn't require breaking flow to start spelling out in regular text what you're doing.
This sounds like it mirrors my usage. Basically treat it like pairing with a really junior dev: assume everything it writes will be wrong and then go from there. If you do that then best case it speeds you up and worst case you waste a little time reading what it wrote that was wrong and ignoring the suggestion and moving on.
Hint: the money comes from redistribution, not blindly printing more, the latter would obviously be completely insane (which is why you'd rather argue that scenario) whereas the former would keep the economy going, which is obviously in the interest of the capitalist class. No point owning and producing if there's no buyer because everyone is starving.
What you seem to think would devalue money will be the very thing that keeps it going as a concept.
And I hope you understand somewhere deep down that Bitcoin is the epitome of monopoly money.
I see it as the polar opposite, backed by math. A politically controlled money supply with no immutable math-based proof of its release schedule is Monopoly money. Cuck bucks. Look at the 100 year buying power chart.
On your second point, in spirit I agree. You need a stable society to enjoy wealth so it’s in the ruling classes best interest to keep things under control. HOW to keep things under control is the real debate.
That's what makes it bad. A fixed algorithm that soon will spawn pittances would do an utterly miserable job if it ever gained status and usage as actual currency. Deflation is bad. So much worse than inflation. Not having flexibility in the money supply is lunacy.
Mild inflation resulting in 100 year buying power going to fuck-all is good. It forces money to be invested, put to work. If sitting on your stash is its own investment the economy is screwed. Reduced circulation means less business means less value added and generally more friction. Why would you want that?
Crypto does some things well (illegal stuff, escaping currency controls/moving lots of money "with you") but in the end that also requires it is only just big enough for reasonable liquidity, but not so big it has an impact on the actual economy. For what it's being pushed for... it's a negative-sum game only good for taking people for a ride. It should stay in its goddamn lane.
All money is politically controlled, including Bitcoin (although it's debatable if Bitcoin even counts as money). The politics of Bitcoin are one-op-one-vote rather than one-man-one-vote, but it's still there, and it's still mutable if enough of them cast their votes in any given way.
I mean yes, it's unironically better if something that ruins things for everyone is restricted to be a luxury good, because less of a bad thing (congestion, pollution, space, death etc) is a good thing even if some lucky fuckers (not enough to meaningfully impact the larger effect) manage to skirt the spirit of the law.
Private cars will eventually be banned from cities, though, I'm sure of that. But it will take a long time. Congestion pricing and such are baby steps and is just you finally paying for your previously free externalities, and yes the market (in this case society/dominant politics) gets to set the price. Tough luck, welcome to proper capitalism.
Unfortunately only freezing. In a more reasonable world yes they'd be taken and used for restoration (you break it you buy it), nothing political about it either. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with this.
I agree the assets of defence contractors, politicians who voted in favor of war and their families in the United States should all be nationalized and used to repair the smoking crater left in the middle east.
Oh you weren't talking about those war crimes? Only the one's the media tells you to be mad at? Rachel Maddow would know what is justified in war, given she was just the keynote speaker at a weapons manufacturers conference.
Imagine you are buying some coal from a dude and that dude settles with getting an IOU note from you.
Later on, you decide you no longer have to honor that IOU debt because you no longer like what that dude does with other people. You've also put that coal to a good use. A win-win for you.
> menu system that closes the menu if you click at a submenu?
Mine doesn't do this, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by submenu (I'm thinking of the thing that has a > at the end. Also why would you want to click it when it opens automatically on hover?)
> if I opened a dialog
So close it, or look up the thing before you open a modal, a rather common concept across many platforms.
> there is a different shortcut
Granularity is bad... why exactly? But a tip, get HyperSwitch (this is the real reason for writing this comment)
The last one I don't even get how you mean the OS designer would get involved with how exactly applications are made. What would the alternative mechanism be, forcing (how?) them to put everything in menus? What about right-click menus, should they be banned? How is any of this unique to Apple?
I'm not saying they are infallible, but these are some weird ass examples.
I've also heard of this one tribe heavily addicted to misinformation. They just can't get enough of it! They weren't even feral and naive to exposure, it somehow just... crept up on them.