It's not good for the economy when no one is willing to move for the next 20-30 years. And it's not good for the people who are unable to move to chase a better job as well.

There's not a constant cutoff. It depends a lot on what the president and the administration do. Does the president push the button and start nuclear war? They are the primary driver for the new economy. Does the president continue the same policies that were working for the last decade and continue to work for the length of their presidency? They might never be the primary driver.

People eat kudzu?

Somewhere, there’s a kudzu recipe book.

I think the roots are quite good.

If Nike wanted to stop that they could just take more orders at $200. It's not like a concert, they can just make more shoes.

Or sell them at $1000 itself if that's really where the demand is at.

Are you being hyperbolic, or do you really consider Google the worst with regards to privacy.

The most ubiquitous, absolutely. Their data collection is unparalleled. They're on almost every website, app, they have fingers into payment and browsers and mobile OSes.

In terms of what they do with big data there's more evil parties like Palantir but data abuse starts with collecting it, and I would object to it even if Google promised to only use it for good. For me my privacy is already violated when my data is collected, not just when it's abused. And I do consider Google's use of that data abusive, just not in the worst ways.

The idea that Google isn't the worst in respects to privacy is not an idea I've seen. Is there a company you propose as being worse? I think Meta is the next contender but they don't have nearly the same influence, so its still Google. Not for a lack of trying though. Mark would love to have the data and infrastructure dependence that Google holds over the internet.

Google is a bad as a phone number since it also has strong ties to your real identity

Yes. Google is even worse imho.

Google is objectively the worst

If their agents take over the world, then they don't need to worry about going public. Dividends for the current share holders!

It also prevents those storms from dissipating the energy. So once the jet stream moves north again, bigger than otherwise storms will happen.

Or they've fully vested and either have no desire to make even more money or were not offered enough to keep them around.

> We finished the rewrite in two months. > racing towards a deadline imposed by external factors so we all ended up working a lot of hours.

2 months of 80 hour weeks is 4 months of regular weeks. Can you clarify how many hours your team was putting in? And how large was your team?

Probably averaging 70. 9 devs and 1 QA engineer.

Assuming the LLM never got anything wrong or otherwise had to be re-prompted, that means your devs were reviewing 130 SLOC per hour, on what was described as moderately greenfield (examining new implementations rather than comparing to old historical accidents).

How?

I don't want to sound flippant, but if the point is to add human thought to the mix, that's a high review rate even when examining small tweaks to an existing, working product, even with substantial AI help to pre-filter major gotchas before you bother spending a lot of human effort on the review. That's only 20-30wpm, but a review isn't just scanning or reading code, especially if you're trying to figure out how a new system which doesn't run yet will fit together.

> Assuming the LLM never got anything wrong or otherwise had to be re-prompted, that means your devs were reviewing 130 SLOC per hour,

It's possible, I think, but humans cannot do repetitive mental work (like reviewing code) constantly without atrophy.

Can I review 130 SLoC/hour? Sure. Can I do it 80 hours a week? No. Not even a single 8-hour workday.

The fatigue aspect matters too, but another important point I was trying to get across is that not all reviews are created equally. In a working, well tested, properly factored system, with a high quality PR, I can do a cursory, local analysis of the new code and be very confident that it works. AI code I've seen is ... not that. I wouldn't be comfortable in that review without manually checking preconditions and postconditions, defining invariants, examining lifetimes, and a host of other activities. Moreover, for a greenfield replacement of lots of SLOC, I'd expect that most of the code for the early PRs can't even meaningfully run or do anything important, making any sort of broader architectural analysis impossible.

I could see a world potentially where they came up with a magic prompt allowing each proposed PR to be cohesive, shippable, well factored, and everything else you need to be able to actually review it at a higher level and be comfortable with the results, but I'm skeptical. That's a major innovation if they managed to do so even as a one-off, and that wasn't the thing they highlighted when talking about the project.

Is that actually a high review rate? Especially if you know the language and domain. Sure, initially there's a learning curve for a new codebase structure, but lots of lines will also be trivial and many changes might also be similar to each other.

For small separate changes in isolation then maybe it's ok? But not for whole days 8 hours each.

But then you need to watch for bugs coming from interaction with previous changes and in 700k loc that might be nontrivial. How do you know which states are reachable and which are not? That takes time.

It only takes a botched condition here (forgot a "not"? swapped "and"/"or"?), a swapped variable name there, code that looks ok, but isn't.

No don’t worry they said it’s not slop because there’s tests lol

Isn't this best explained by inflation. It seems like this implies that inflation adjusted GDP/energy remained pretty constant

Those numbers are in units of "Consumption per Real Dollar of GDP", which is defined as follows: "Calculated as energy consumption divided by U.S. gross domestic product in chained (2017) dollars".

I don't know exactly what it meant by "chained", although from the context it does sound as though it might mean something like "inflation adjusted".

> I don't know exactly what it meant by "chained"

It does mean they tried to eliminate inflation as a factor. In my experience though the basket of goods used for inflation calculations do a poor job representing the majority of consumers' and businesses' costs.

I am getting more and more peeved by using GDP as a single number. Cost of existing, aka housing and healthy food, skyrocketed compared to median income. But hey, the tech got cheaper.