ah, i see.

that sentence as a standalone makes no sense, with the context it's still borderline but i can see how you got there.

that....doesn't make any sense

If you only see things that conform to your beliefs what need is there for anger ?

It absolutely is a problem, because now that there's 1000 bug reports where there used to be 10.

Especially in an ecosystem that is paying attention to quality, someone has to review and sort those reports, evaluate them for quality vs close them.

I don't disagree with the likelihood of them putting that in there.

That argument is weaksauce though, it's not called murdery murderperson either... And yet..

This is exactly the question i ask "investment advisor" services when they call asking if i want help managing investments.

For you to have a system that works well enough for me to be interested , there'd be no need for you to spend money on call centers full of people ringing up strangers for money, you could take all of that money and invest it in the plan you are trying to sell me.

With "nation" and "rogue" being subject to the perspective(ethical, moral, fiscal etc) of the reporting body.

It's worth looking but I think you'd be surprised by how much subjective leniency Russia gets depending on the politics of the time.

Edit : I wasnt trying to point out a particular bias, just that the guardian is a tabloid rag with delusions of respectability.

They aren't totally inept, nor are they a bastion of unbiased premium journalism

They might not be injecting it directly , but they certainly surface it by omission/language choice.

Like saying the UK "commandeered" or "retrieved" a boat or transport , but would say "hijacked", "stole" or "pirated" for a demographics they didn't particularly favour at that time.

You should be paying attention to the omissions and the choice of language overall, because that's where the bias is (usually).

For the compsci industries at least, it's a productivity boost with moderate to extreme consequences in the middle to long term.

Not that that is a problem for CEO's and companies that work quarter to quarter, but it will be a problem in 5-10 years when they have no senior workers to pick up/fix the problems that LLM's introduce.

Or for the particularly dim-witted few in the short term who throw money at a problem they don't understand while ignoring the people they are paying to advise them, thinking they can remove the "unpredictable" human element.

Unless, of course, the LLM's improve so much in the runway each company has left, so as to eliminate these issues, i think it unlikely, but we'll see.

It's called fingerprinting and yes.

It can be much more insidious than is widely known but the real use comes from the aggregation of data from many sources, over time.

Basically Google's playbook, across many/all companies.

Did someone claim self defence?

Perhaps the video cuts out before that happened?

Do you have the full vid?

An excellently described personal and subjective approach to determining good vs bad.

Im not saying you're wrong, im saying your chosen usage and/or perception of metrics isn't universal.

It's useful to me, ymmv.

And again, your perception of good is just that, yours.

I happen to agree with the sentiment in general terms but I fully understand it's just my subjective experience and i wouldn't use it as a baseline for others.

There are people I would consider "good" , but it's very contextual, people are mercurial.