I’m sure it is solvable through other means

How about kinetic orbital bombardment. You know, "Rods From God." Didn't turn out to have much strategic military value, but would they be an effective deterrent against spammers, scammers, junk mailers and robocallers? One way to find out!

Maybe at this point we should just do it the way some countries did for cigarettes and ban social media for everyone born after 2010.

And those generated worlds will have a hundredth of the "interesting stuff density" as ones the small team had time to thoughtfully construct by hand. It's like the tomatoes and blueberries they bred to be bigger and getting the same amount of flavor as the old smaller ones stretched out with a lot of water.

Even if you're running the party like it's a cynical numbers game there are two possible scenarios. A. You could try to win more votes by moving to the right and peeling off center-right Republicans. Mostly old people who were proud of being asociated with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher but ashamed of being associated with Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. You do this at the expense of losing however many people on the left wing who are barely willing to vote for you now, who if they see your new platform is sucking up to Israel harder, backing the blue, and throwing trans people under the bus, will just stay home.

B. You could try to win more votes by moving to the left and motivating the mostly young people who currently aren't voting at all because both parties just answer to lobbyists and let billionaires get away with everything and nothing ever happens so what's the point. They will vote for meaningful, structural change. They will vote for whoever comes out as standing for the polar opposite of every single thing conservatives stand for, and promising to fight for it hard.

You can bet on either path working out- again, even being completely mercenary and strategic and not taking a principled stand on anything. One or the other group of potential voters has to be larger.

Here's the thing, in my whole life I have only ever seen Democrats- as a party- try doing A. Again and again and again. We have seen 3 decades of results demonstrating how effective a strategy it isn't.

Might B work better? I don't know, no one does, because they've never once just fucking tried it.

So I don't believe it is even a strategy at all, not a serious and good-faith one. It's a ruse; an op.

But the Democrats aren't the only ones doing it. Look around the world, right now everywhere's got some gutless, triangulating, unilaterally-compromising centrist party that's good for business and good for business as usual and polls well with the low-information normies but when it comes down to it they will side with the far-right against the far-left 10 times out of 10.

This is the United States government we're talking about, "conflict of interest" is pretty much the new "rule of law."

Here's a really good article- with illustrations- about something that theoretically can and so definitely will go wrong with "agentic coding" on any sufficiently large project. The Decoherence Trap

It warms my heart to read first-hand accounts of this starting to happen at real companies. I hope the financial AI crash holds off just a little longer to make sure they've all had enough time to dig themselves into holes past the point of no return.

Before you go, you should helpfully vibe port and vibe refactor the original codebase to make it forwards-compatible with the new one.

You should vibe code a backup version management system too, and give an agent control over it. Prompt it with an extensive and detailed list of all the ways it could lose the original data and tell it to be sure never to do any of them. Unless the data got corrupted somehow. How would we know if the data's corrupted? Running a suite of vibe-coded tests, of course.

Practice your shocked face for when the agent does an oopsie and accidentally overwrites the only pre-slop versions.

Because conservative ideology. (Get gud, loser. I got mine. Eat cake and die.)

• Government spending money to help people is the most evil thing imaginable.

• People who can't find jobs are lazy because of their inferior genes so natural selection needs to cull them from the population.

• Worthless surplus humans should be allowed to starve to death in the gutter as an example- reminding all the wage slaves to be grateful to their masters for those wages they've been slaving for.

Better to think of all the other things that if done poorly would make any game suck despite having the most cutting edge and "realistic" rendering or 3d engine visual fx.

Then intentionally limit the graphics to some retro standard, and focus on all those other things instead. It is a lot more likely, as an indie / hobbyist game maker, to succeed at one or two of those other things well enough to make your game stand out anyway.

Yes the former is slop and exists and the latter is science fiction and does not exist. AI companies especially Anthropic have been pushing a narrative, even though they know better that LLMs are on a path to becoming conscious and smarter than humans, because that would mean they really could eventually replace all human labor, which they have to do for the AI companies' insane valuations to make sense. Amodei has been scaremongering and crying wolf about sentient rogue super-ai being right around the corner as a marketing tactic. Well-meaning politicians, dissapointingly including Bernie, have fallen for it, because politicians don't understand tech enough to effectively legislate on it but try anyway. See also: trying to ban VPNs and making it illegal for 3d printers to be able to print gun parts.

If the entire answer is "No.", the article is just clickbait and didn't need to be written. More often though it's "No; but..." and there's the subject of the article. Which, if you can sum it up in a sentence, would make a better title for the article than the question one.

I don't think Jeffries needs to be impeached. I think the Democratic Party to act like their name suggests and ask the voters. They are allowed to choose their own leaders any way they want, right? So instead of having a closed meeting secret vote to keep the same guy as last time, hold a non-binding referendum and mail special ballots out to every registered Democrat. Everyone can rank their top 10 and bottom 10 choices for the next Speaker of the House. They don't have to commit to going with the popular winner but they do have to publish the results, and it would look bad on the leadership if they don't pick someone in the overall top 3.