>How does one get to "half ten" in German? Is it simply starting from "half to ten"?
Never thought about it much but I think you're spot on. English uses "half past" and therefore "half 10" means 10:30, whereas most other languages use "half to" which causes "half 10" to mean 9:30.
One would think this should cause confusion for international meetings often enough to be common knowledge, but I didn't know until today...
Oh come on! I'll take a few years of expensive RAM in order for humanity to get wide access to something near as makes no difference to the Star Trek Ship computer.
Which is 100% what this has felt like to work with, all spring and summer.
So we're in a slop phase, it'll pass. The first few years of youtube gave no hints that we'd get stuff like Veritasium.
Ignore the slop and use the tools to create something you never thought you could do. That's what it's for!
In the time it takes me to make a single-node webservice with a CLI POC client I can now have a fully scalable SAAS with clients for iOS, Android, mac, linux, windows and web-based, user documentation in several languages and a suite of unit tests.
Surely that's both faster and further?
IMO AI agents are like a team of remote consultants that only talk shop and have no sense of humor.
>and Django was like this 15 years ago when I first started using it. The core design hasn't changed, it just sounds like most other ORMs don't really know what they're doing.
Django is an opinionated web framework that uses an ORM, not just an ORM.
Django can by all means be a great way to make a web site (I have little experience with it) but if you have a db that is accessed by various systems written in Java, dotnet, erlang or whatever else I suspect the smooth sailing of Django can run into headwinds quickly and the python plumbing you have to deal with then quickly becomes an issue in itself.
You have mixed the posts you are replying to - the domain being different from the database is stipulated here.
I was giving examples of how this typically happens, and the reasons are entirely independent of whether or not an ORM is being used.
I am fully aware that you can handle any mess using an ORM as well, which is why I was surprised at the original claim that ORM's force proper domain models. I haven't observed that so I was genuinely curious.
Separately from that I have to say your suggestions of things to do to force an ORM into the situation are bad ideas. The complexity of custom serialization, various mapping hooks or attributes to bless individual properties will lead to pain and misery down the line.
Just accept the extra layer of DTO's. They're a detour over pure SQL but are at least easy to maintain and hold no surprises. They say there's a special place in hell for people who write SQL triggers and I think people who override ORM serializers are welcome there. ;-)
It's a combination of small things really. The mentioned ability to easily call on various models in the same prompt, having agent definitions be able to orchestrate other agents just by mentioning it in the description, doing things like goal/loop automatically.
There is also IMO a distinct difference in "tone" in the dialogue. Claude seems to impersonate a human a bit more than I like.
Claude is of course very good as well and does a few things better than copilot too, but overall I'd prefer to use Copilot.
I am a huge fan of Copilot CLI. It just feels so logical and low-friction to use compared to Claude Code. Having the ability to juggle various models at will is really nice too. ("Plan this using Opus 4.6, let GPT 5.4 verify the plan and give feedback before implementing with Sonnet 4.6").
Unfortunately the June pricing change for Copilot forced me personally as well as my entire department at work to switch to Claude Code. With copilot we were hitting a few dollars of extra spend over the included credits in April and May, then in June we started chewing through the monthly budget every 2-3 days.
Just a completely insane price hike from the customer's perspective, I don't know what MS were thinking there.
Even if that is the price they need to be sustainable they should have waited until the competition changed their prices first. I wouldn't be surprised if Copilot lost 50% or more of their customer base last month.
Eventually this could be where all the major players set their prices, so the thought occurs to me that nations should run some form of "public access AI", just like they did for TV. Use the free open models and use tax money to finance a few datacenters. Geo-lock the use and set strict throttles to manage load, but let school children and citizens use that AI freely otherwise.
If Copilot's pricing is the level for all AI in a few years, only the unicorn companies can afford to use them, and everybody else has no chance of competing with a company that can use AI.
"After the Windscale fire released radioactive fallout onto grazing land in 1957, Britain discarded contaminated milk for 44 days, thereby avoiding any harm."
This is also not true, the actual reports estimate 33-100 deaths, 90 nonfatal cancers and 10 birth defects. (summary from wikipedia):
"These deaths were attributed not only to thyroid cancer, but also to lung cancer.[74] An updated 1988 UK government report (the most recent government estimate) estimated that 100 fatalities "probably" resulted from cancers as a result of the releases over 40 to 50 years.[75][76] The government report also estimated that 90 non-fatal cancers were caused by the incident, as well as 10 hereditary defects.[75]"
It's hard to imagine ignorance that manages to be familiar with Windscale yet not know anything about the estimated harm.
The claim that lack of nuclear power is to blame for global warming doesn't hold up because even in a best case scenario, nuclear power can only replace a small part of the activities that cause global warming, and it takes way too long to even replace that.
The argument that we have a choice between nuclear power or global warming is therefore either misinformed or dishonest.
We're already dealing with global warming, and as of 2026 the fastest, cheapest and most effective way to replace fossil fuel is solar power and batteries, not nuclear power.
Batteries are so far mainly deployed in cars, where they replace millions of gallons of fossil fuels from being consumed every day, but they can also effectively be deployed in homes, communities and cities. It takes days to deploy, can be mass produced and distributed to any country in the world with no issue (even North Korea and Iran) and immediately reduces fossil consumption.
Newly deployed solar panels are adding several nuclear power plants worth of new power to the world every year, and they too start working the same day and can be deployed by almost anyone, everywhere.
If we want to stop altering the biosphere by burning fossil fuels, clearly we should hurry up with batteries and solar and not spend billions and decades on nuclear.
The list is entirely relevant - the article itself talks about radiation and spends half the text analyzing the result of exactly the kind of exposure that the wikipedia article has several examples of:
"There are cases of Keralans exposed to sand containing thorium; Manhattan Project scientists who inhaled so much plutonium that they peed it out; early British radiologists who worked without any protection from the X-rays they worked with. "
But the article avoided the ones that caused fatalities, despite there being many, many examples.
Why did it do that? Why cherry-pick harmless examples to argue that something is harmless when there are many, many examples that show the opposite?
The explanation is revealed quickly - while the article pretends to talk about low-level radiation being harmless, which is frankly entirely uncontroversial, it is actually using that to try to argue that nuclear power is over-regulated:
"the world’s international radiation protection regime is based on the idea that any release of radioactive material from a nuclear power plant is intolerable. This has led to regulations that have increased the costs of nuclear electricity over time to the point where it is widely considered a slow, backward, and ineffective technology. "
But the safety protocols for nuclear power are NOT based on worries from low-level radiation exposure, they are based on the known risks and dangers of HIGH radiation exposure!
If anything the current problem with nuclear power plans is a lack of respect for how dangerous it actually is.
Nuclear power has been allowed to operate with nowhere near the security measures it requires for decades. The realization of the dangers have so far mostly been discovered by close calls - the 9/11 hijackers at one point planned to hit a nuclear plant. Oops, nuclear plants worldwide were upgraded with security measures to handle passenger jets crashing into them. At least one.
Fukushima had bad reserve power. Oops, let's ensure we have better reserve power.
The Sellafield site, The Asse II mine - Oops - We need better storage.
We have gotten reminders of how lax the security of nuclear power is many, many times, but so far we have never had a worst case scenario. And because of that, articles like this one pop up claiming it's safe. But it's a lie.
The actual truth is that operating a nuclear power plant safely takes enormous effort and is so expensive no company can do it profitably. The cost always gets shifted to governments.
>we have altered the biosphere even more by not engaging in nuclear activity
You imply that we could have made enough nuclear plants to replace coal, oil and gas and that would have prevented the effects of fossil fuel consumption.
That's not the case. It would have been entirely impossible to make enough plants to even replace coal and oil fast enough, and even if we did, electricity is only 25% of emissions.
The argument is also an annoyingly common attempt to sell the idea that nuclear power is not dangerous because there haven't been worst-case accidents yet.
But we know they can happen and what the consequences would be, so it's entirely irrelevant what has happened so far.
Both Fukushima and Chernobyl are active incidents ongoing as we speak, we don't know how bad even they will turn out to be.
>And taking the labor and time of the employees is a value extracted
That counts the value twice though. The value of the labour is precisely the payroll and the profits so it's accounted for.
Edit: So simply put, Volvo (or any other co with a factory in the US) operates a business that generates a lot of payroll and some profits, and the payroll remains in the US.
>The vast majority of the value provided vs extracted, for any business, is related to consumer surplus and gross margins, as opposed to payroll.
Not sure what you mean here but I suspect we're talking about different things. Payroll is obviously value created by the business that's directly given to the society where the business operates, and it's not uncommon that it's higher than the company profits.
Take Amazon for example, payroll costs are much higher than the profits.
Car companies also create a secondary maintenance and repair business, insurance and financing business, resale business and so on that generate more value in the country they operate as well.
So I find it likely that a well established car brand like Volvo generates more money that stays in the US than they generate money that is extracted out from the US.
I don't think Polestar should be banned, nor any other Chinese car maker for that matter, but I can understand why Volvo gets a different treatment.
Volvo probably employs several 1000s of people throughout the US from decades of dealerships, workshops, second hand sales etc, and they have a relatively large factory in the US.
Polestar OTOH has no factories and use direct-sales instead of going through dealerships.
So it's likely that Volvo generates a lot more value inside the US than they extract, while Polestar probably doesn't.
I would be more terrified if they didn’t spare a manufacturer who designs and makes cars in Sweden and the US since decades just because the majority owner is Chinese.
Never thought about it much but I think you're spot on. English uses "half past" and therefore "half 10" means 10:30, whereas most other languages use "half to" which causes "half 10" to mean 9:30.
One would think this should cause confusion for international meetings often enough to be common knowledge, but I didn't know until today...