First of all, obviously there's more training data on high level languages than assembly / compiled binaries. Secondly, Python, Java or even C is portable to another device. You know, one of the main points of high level languages: that you don't have to rewrite your app from scratch each time you want to change the machine it runs on.
Thirdly, compilers also do type checking and other static analysis and dynamic checks (array length etc). So it's not only got more guardrails against "mistakes" by the LLM, but it's also most likely "easier" for the LLM to "reason" about (in the sense that LLMs can reason).
There's no intrinsic value to having humans read the code, so as soon as LLMs are good enough to work on their own, companies will no longer need to keep developers who can read code as a backup solution.
You typically only win the lottery once as well... It's 1 mil at the release date of the game and the following maybe 3-6 months. Game sales usually happen at the release date and then there's a pretty much insignificant "long tail" of sales.
Anyway, while 1 million isn't really enough to retire instantly, for sure it lets you retire 10-20 years earlier if you're just a little bit smart with money.
If they just wrote the owners of the weapons companies a check directly, the public wouldn't like that as much as the "patriotic" "war on terror". But of course there's also other reasons such as religious fundamentalism (christian zionism) that influence it.
The military industrial complex is a "narrative"? If anything the public does not understand it enough. But please, do scrutinize it. What is the goal of all of the USAs wars in the middle east, if not to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of shareholders of weapons companies? The latest one for example, in Iran, is clearly just because Trump can profit off of it, and because Israel wants to destroy all of their enemies in the region. And of course, Israel is a great consumer of USAs military technology (which they buy with "aid" i.e. taxpayer money from USA itself).
You're calling it a "conspiracy theory" despite loads of evidence of insider trading, both traditional and crypto, by Trump and his cronies?
Do you think the Trump-Epstein connections are just a "conspiracy theory" as well?
Nothing against Godot, it's a great project, but looking at the wikipedia list of notable games using the engine, there's a single one I have heard of. Meanwhile about 28% of the market share of all video games is using Unreal. So I don't really see the need to make "everyone much happier" honestly.
> Sell additional services which actually do cost you money to keep up
After a game has been released a solo dev often has very little work to do, since they've already invested all of the development time ahead of release. So, by this logic they shouldn't really be allowed to charge anything for the game, except to cover potential work on updates.
Perhaps game projects don't need to operate like nonprofits, but then why do game engine projects?
If you get a million dollars in revenue as a solo dev, it's pretty much just winning the lottery. You've already spent all the working hours to make the game, so it's pretty much all profit at that point. What costs do you even have?
It's a free choice to use the engine, you can use another engine or make your own if 5% is too much for you.
> So anyone with claude access could arrive at the same conclusions ... and ask claude to fix it?
Begs the question of why the original "author" of the code hasn't just asked Claude to fix it? Or asked Claude to generate good code from the beginning. I suppose the answer is that nobody cares about good or efficient code anymore. But that's been the case since long before LLM coding though (as stated in your point 1).
Why write clever code when we can just write JS slop and ask customers "upgrade" their hardware every year...
On most systems I use I've managed to set it up so that I get spell checking in all languages I use. So I only get a red line if it's not a valid word in any of the languages, which is pretty useful.
Why is it the worst example? Sure, the laws don't 100% prevent children from smoking, but certainly they have an effect. I'm not using it as an example of a perfectly effective law, I'm using it to make the point that it wouldn't be reasonable to say "parenting is the only defense against smoking" and scrap the law.
Note that I'm not in favor of either weed or alcohol being as readily accessible as they are now, but there are a few things making that claim a bit dubious. The first is that obviously people are less reluctant to self-report using weed if it's legal. Secondly, the causation could be reversed, i.e. there are other factors in society contributing to both higher usage and larger general support for legalization.
In any case, my point was that simply making something illegal with the threat of "decades in prison" isn't a very good solution. Gambling, drugs, social media, etc. are all "big business", there's money to be made because there's a demand for it. How to solve that I don't know, but just prohibiting it doesn't seem like a good fix.
"Parenting" is a nebulous concept and at least to me, it also includes pushing for better laws for children. Nobody would think it's reasonable to allow stores to sell cigarettes to children and tell parents "if you don't like it, just don't let your kids smoke".
People have spend decades in prison for selling weed. Now it's legalized in more and more countries. Making things people like illegal rarely works, and it's far from a "solvable problem". Don't get me wrong, gambling is very bad, but if we were to analyze it statistically I think alcohol is way worse for society at large. And we all know how making alcohol illegal went.
I'm not exactly well-versed in the term "cutting someone off", perhaps it implies dangerously moving in front of somebody, in which case, obviously it shouldn't be done. But often people are unwilling to slow down to open a gap to let somebody "cut them off", even when it's perfectly safe to do so (low speeds and low speed differences).
By slowing down to let somebody in front of you, you prevent them from missing their turn at practically no cost to yourself. But there's this psychological need to be "first" among many drivers, that also causes other irrational behaviors.
It's not uncommon to see drivers keep way too little distance to the cars in front and pass quite aggressively, only for us to end up next to each other at the next red light anyway. All their wasted gas and lowered safety margins got them was arriving at the light 2 seconds earlier.
Flashing your hazards to thank somebody isn't something I've even seen officially recommended and I see it more as a nuisance in most cases. The communication can't really be unambiguously understood as a "thanks", especially not if you do it for more than one flash.
It's something I personally do about once in a hundred passes if I think somebody really went out of their way to accommodate me, but even then I realize it's detracting from road safety in several ways, such as reaching over to the often awkwardly placed button, and perhaps confusing other drivers.
But I suppose it's a cultural thing, I've heard that in India it's common to use the horn to notify other drivers of your presence even though there's no imminent danger. Which is something that in most other countries would be seen as obnoxious.
The system of signs used is an independent question from the level of driver education (which probably is generally lower in the USA than in most European countries though), which also is another question from whether people "are stupid".
The obvious benefit of the European style is that you don't need to speak the language in order to understand the signs, something that is clearly less important given the relative homogeneity of language in the USA.
But at least to me, the European road signs are also more quick to read. For example, the "only right turns" and "speed limit 60" are exactly the same shape and color in the USA, while in Europe there is more of a logical system (which also means you don't "memorize a bunch of symbols", you learn the "language" of the signs), such as blue disc means "mandatory", red circle means "prohibited", red triangle means "warning", etc.
> The signaler needs to have anticipated it and not signaled until this problem doesn't exist
How do you handle an upcoming left turn (assuming right hand driving) during heavy traffic?
It's not the responsibility of the car changing lanes to optimize the fuel economy of the cars behind, but it is the responsibility of the cars behind to not needlessly impede other drivers from getting where they need to go.
> When there's already a lot of momentum toward closing the gap
Does "momentum towards closing the gap" just mean that you're keeping a higher speed than the car in front of you? I don't see any reason you'd do this unless you have another free lane to the left and are planning to pass. If you don't then you're just reducing your margins to the next car for no reward, as you'd have to slow down anyway once the gap is "closed".
Thirdly, compilers also do type checking and other static analysis and dynamic checks (array length etc). So it's not only got more guardrails against "mistakes" by the LLM, but it's also most likely "easier" for the LLM to "reason" about (in the sense that LLMs can reason).
There's no intrinsic value to having humans read the code, so as soon as LLMs are good enough to work on their own, companies will no longer need to keep developers who can read code as a backup solution.