Because or in spite of? Claude code works because of Claude being good and network effects. Agentic coding tools are maybe the dumbest code ever for the level of popularity they have.
I won't name names just in case I'm misremembering but I'm pretty sure a remote desktop program you've heard at one point was adding a global LD_PRELOAD and pointing it at a shared library that anyone could write to.
But I might be making this up so not being specific lest I do a cheeky libel
In turn I'm sick of myopic fools using foreign stupidity to cover up the undeniable truth that there is a huge problem with petty crime and anti-social behaviour in london e.g. the boss of M&S wrote a letter on this just recently
> I keep hearing crime is falling, especially in London - something none of us believe and very few people working in retail would see. In fact, we see the absolute opposite in our High Streets and in our stores, where our colleagues are on the receiving end of abuse and violence in their workplace every day.
> It is becoming more brazen, more organised and more aggressive.
> Across the UK, there were around 5.5 million incidents of shoplifting last year, and that excludes the vast number that go unreported. Every day, more than 1,600 retail workers face violence or abuse. This is not isolated. It is systemic and it is getting worse, not better.
A contrarian view although I do dislike contracting with foreign companies for roughly similar reasons: Palantir's technology looks good and I think it probably works. Most things don't work.
Isn’t this true for any project ever attempted? The only reason this project exists is because millions have already been wasted on trying to do this in house
Yes, but the comment I was replying to sounded like it was saying that the large cost wasn't an issue, because it would have such a big impact. But the odds of it actually accomplishing anything useful need to be taken into account, too. If it has a low chance of success, then a large price tag isn't worth it.
So massively overprovision them. It’s still cheaper than fossil fuels, especially if you price in all the externalities. Seems like all these hungry datacenters we’re building can soak up any excess capacity anyway.
What does cheap mean? You aren't paying for the same thing - a ccgt plant is super fast and works independent of the weather.
I'm in favour of having it but the reason why you need to over provision is because of the intermittency. This can also push out proper base load (e.g. nuclear) although it's not simple.
You have to think about the portfolio.
In Britain at least there is also a bit of a sleight of hand where the marginal costs are reported but not the CFD strike prices used to incentivise the buildout.
This is correct in the sense that, if you were to build a zero emissions energy system from scratch with today's technology, your conclusion would be that you'd eventually have to do this.
But in much of the world, setting up PV is economically sound simply because it displaces a certain amount of kWh generated over the course of a year from other sources that are more polluting and more expensive.
In this regime, the dynamics of production over time don't matter yet.
At some point, when renewable generation has very high penetration, you'll reach a point where building more is uneconomical, and to then displace the remaining other power sources you'll need to overpay (ignoring externalities).
However, that's assuming no technological change on the way there, which is a whole separate topic.
So one slightly fascinating bit of number station / espionage radio lore is "RAFTER" an MI5 scheme cooked up by Peter Wright to detect the _receiver_ of the radio using emissions from the internals of the radio set (superhet mixing iirc)
reply