We absolutely do know. Study after study has found actual voter fraud to be practically non existent. What does happen a tiny but measurable amount of time: John Smith signing on the line of the wrong John Smith.
Actual, intentional rampant fraud has not been documented.
I’m sorry, but how can you demonstrate that there is no fraud when the identity of people voting is not verified? You simply can not. At best you can say the ballots cast are all for registered voters, but not that they actually cast them.
Because it is trivial to identify the people who vote by mail. This complaint comes up over and over and over and over and over again by people that have spent zero seconds actually looking into how verification is done.
You compare the signature with what's on the voter record. You check records to see if they passed away recently. Then you can compare addresses and any other personal details. This is more than enough information to strongly verify that the person who voted was who they say.
It's why fraud is rare and why the cases of attempted mass voting fraud are immediately identified (see: Leslie McCrae Dowless)
My company just had an RTO announcement and I kid you not the head of HR said “well I like working from the office” as if that’s a reason why we should as well.
Back before Apple allowed users to set the default browser I had a feature in my app that presented a list of installed browsers when a user opens an external link, giving them the option to choose where it opened.
One could also argue that negative electricity prices at noon are "obscene".
It doesn't make economic sense to push for more solar in a grid dominated by solar without additional investments into electricity storage and these investments have to be paid by someone.
Rollout of digital smart meters for households makes sense, so that people can make use of cheap electricity at noon. Large customers of electricity already now buy electricity either on electricity market at variable raters or have specific long-term contracts with electricity suppliers.
It seems you find LoC as a measure of productivity. This would answer your question as to why the author does not find it makes them more productive. If total output increases, but quality decreases (which in terms of code means more bugs) then has productivity increased or has it stayed the same?
To answer my own question, if you can pump out features faster but turn around and spend more time on bugs than you do previously then your productivity is likely net neutral.
There is a reason LoC as a measure of productivity has been shunned from the industry for many, many years.
I didn't mean to imply LoC as a measurement of productivity. What I really mean is more "amount of useful code produced to a level the human-using-the-llm determines to be useful".
To try and give an example, say that you want to make a module that transforms some data and you ask the LLM to do it. It generates a module with tons of single-layer if-else branches with a huge LoC. Maybe one human dev looks at it and says, "great this solves my problem and the LoC and verbosity isn't an issue even though it is ugly". Maybe the second looks at it and says, "there's definitely some abstraction I can find to make this easier to understand and build on top of."
Depending on the scenario and context, either of them could be correct.
LoC is a terrible metric for comparing productivity of different developers, even before you get to Goodhart's Law.
OTOH, for a given developer to implement a given feature in a given system, at the end of the day, some amount of code has to be written.
If a particular developer finds that AI lets him write code comparable to what he would have written, in lieu of the code he would have written, but faster than he can do it alone, then looking at lines written might actually be meaningful, just in that context.
The opinion that those who consume should contribute back is not wrong, and as an open source contributor I fully agree, but it should be understood that anything free is going to be taken. We are an imperfect people in an imperfect world, after all.
I don’t put old furniture on the curb with a FREE sign expecting someone to knock on my door and offer $100 for it. I expect it to be gone without a trace. If I want something, even if it’s 1% of the value, then I’ll have a yard sale. It’s no different here.
Licensing is a form of conveying expectations. Putting an MIT license in my repo conveys that I expect absolutely nothing in return, just like the free sign on the stuff I tossed out.
As more and more companies start to use AI for “personalized”/targeted pricing, offers, advertising, etc. The more this exact type of data will be useful and therefore lucrative.
> Social media is like fentanyl or cocaine for the masses… Ive seen people unable to get out of instagram. Their fingers are constantly twitching and scrolling. This is just like drugs and controlled substances.
Flying is such a wild experience as you can always see the person in front of you constantly scrolling. One time I saw a young gal pay $20 for internet on a 3 hour flight and would scroll Facebook for a minute or two, switch to Instagram for a minute or two, then back to Facebook… for 4 straight hours (boarding + flight + landing). I was genuinely appalled.
I've been the same thing now that I look for it. In a theater in December I saw at least 2 people scrolling through Google or Apple News. In the plane I saw at least 3 people on TikTok. On roadtrips people scroll through Reddit when there is a lull in the conversation.
I don't think it's necessarily worse than people reading a book! But it is certainly widespread.
Not who you are replying to but my $30 wired Apple earbuds (came with my 6S) have outlived all of my co-workers half dozen $160 AirPods. That’s reason enough for a lot of people.
You can buy Apples wired earbuds with the lightning connector for $18. Or the lightning to 3.5mm adapter (that’s what I have because I also still have my decade old original earbuds).
We may never know, every single time I see or hear this comment there is never any data/proof to back it up.
Remember: nothing was wrong with how we vote in 2016 and this suddenly became an issue in 2020.