It is extremely easy to burn tokens if that is required. Explore this codebase. Team x wants y feature, research and generate a full plan. What does feature x in codebase y actually mean? Analyze code coverage in x. Map out code flow and find concurrency bugs in y and on and on...

Oh and my favorite: Use 5 independent subagents to review code change and summarize the findings, and for any finding determine if they are real concerns

https://github.com/dtnewman/burn-baby-burn

Get ready for that promotion!

That's corporate eco-terrorism. How did we sink so low?

It's also the easiest way to determine if your management has AI psychosis or not, and make corresponding decisions about whether to stay with the company.

I'd unironically like my workplace to cover AI spend for me.

There's so, so much mechanically simple but time consuming refactoring that should be done but nobody ever does that because there's never enough free time. Or even various utility scripts and at least finding out of date docs (or writing very basic ones where none exist, though it'd be hard to get them not to feel like slop writing). Or figuring out what additional custom linter rules would be useful, how to improve the CI pipelines and so on.

If I had the Anthropic Max 20x subscription, I could make a large part of the technical backlog disappear (relatively safely).

The wisdom to understand that velocity is not equal to value; and the optimism that this will all end at some point.

Marx had a way to think about that. He would distinguish between labour as in generalized socially necessafy labour, and specific skilled labour.

Value is measure in generalized labour, since that the universal measure of human effort. The genealized amount of time a human being must spend to produce something from its parts. Generalized labour is also what's bought from labourers. You don't pay them to do something specific, you pay them to labour in general.

This contrasts against specific labour, which is whats actually required in the moment. Generalized labour power must be the right kind of specific labour to actually produce anything of value.

The AI leaders have been told that AI is labour. To the extent that it currently is, which I believe is only the case because the market hasn't adjusted, it's not the right specific labour to male anything valuable.

You're being sarcastic, but...

A fine-tuned classifier purpose fit for a specific task can easily outperform a SOTA LLM on more modest hardware and often makes a lot more sense.

Apparently it is not all you need, according to the article.

eh, every 6 months to a year I bring the car in to the dealer to handle the stack of pending recalls, during which I get a rental, courtesy of Ford. It's not much of a deal for me.

Few of the issues I've experienced with the car were clearly tied to quality issues: 1) Battery died a few times, but maybe that was user error 2) squirrels/rats nibbled the engine cable harness, a not-uncommon occurrence in our area. Only 3) auto-unlock on passenger side being unreliable is clearly a quality/design issue.

Honestly, I actually love the Escape. The pedal feel is very responsive in all driving modes, compared in particular to the 2020 Hybrid Rav4, which felt like driving a boat (maybe I didn't find the drive mode?), or the 2020 VW Tiguan which had a shockingly slow automatic transmission for an ostensibly "sporty" vehicle. And I'm not even a car guy. I also love its actual buttons on the dashboard, instead of the idiotic "everything on a huge touchscreen" that too many cars do nowadays.

Which numbers are those? Their sales numbers or their numbers of vehicle recalls due to defective engine manufacturing?

They destroyed their heavier truck reputation with this new Tundra unfortunately

Faulty Obsolete Ruinous Decline

Found On Road Dead

I'm very skeptical of the initial quality studies. No idea how well predict long term (or even 5 year) quality.

JD power is pay to play. Ford just kicked in more money this year.

I think you've misread the parent poster.

* Their "not owning" means a swap to a subscription/license for the car, which could still be exclusive rather than shared.

* Your "not owning" assumes a reduction in the number of cars per capita.

In other words, the "dystopia" they are referring to is one that still has today's problems of gridlock, land use, urban planning, etc., with new kinds of problems layered on. Cars not being user-repairable, being nickel-and-dimed on features, a monopolistic used-parts market, and a general shift towards whatever boosts the car-manufacturer's profit margin.

You are injecting a lot of assumptions and wishful thinking to view the removal of ownership from this equation as a net positive.

I see no reason to assume that this would lead to the disappearance of parked cars or to more trees. Our corporate overlords will want to make use of that space for more cars or infrastructure to support the new car network, why would they ever just give it back willingly?