Anyone who thinks this is pro-labor in any way or going to increase American salaries needs to spend some serious time thinking about who is implementing this policy.

> Immigration is as pro-capital and anti-labor as you can get, yet somehow the left has been convinced to support it.

"Immigration" as such is a made up concept. The legal and physical barriers created by immigration policy are pro-capital and anti-labor. If people could freely move around the world, you can bet there'd be much more focus on pro-labor policies.

You know Asians can be racist against Asians right?

> "acksually they're fetuses"

I highly doubt anyone in your actual life has said this to you, or distilled the entire argument down to this point.

> because it's semantic bullshit

Obviously, semantics isn't "bullshit" because there's been a massive decades long debate over semantics, including millions and millions spent by the right to define the semantics.

I can concede that some people hear this debate and think they're under attack in a "culture war", which I'm really not sure what the solution to that is because semantics is important.

What point are you trying to make? I don't see how you're connecting these things. The highway where I live is certainly designed with racist intent.

In my experience it's far less useful than simple auto complete. It makes things up for even small amounts of code that I have to pause my flow to correct. Also, without actually googling you don't get any context or understanding of what it's writing.

I found it to be more distracting recently. Suggestions that are too long or written in a different style make me lose my own thread of logic that I'm trying to weave .

I've had to switch it off for periods to maintain flow.

Uh there are plenty of people with constructive ideas about government reform.

Anecdotally, I work for a very large tech company and the CFPB is mentioned frequently as an important regulator. It has (had) an outsized impact where it regulated and definitely caused companies to change their behavior or at least be more continuous.

I do appreciate anecdotal evidence! Thanks!

> What I’m looking for is therefore not just the correct answer, but the correct answer in an amount of time that’s faster than it would take me to research the answer myself, and also faster than it takes me to verify the answer given by the machine.

This is why I haven't found AI tools very useful. I find my self spending more time verifying and fixing it's answers than I would have just doing or learning the darn thing myself.

It is added cognitive load, but there is a lot of value in async tasks if you can trust the output or if the opportunity cost of validating is low.

The challenge with something like this for research, in its current state, is you’ll need to go double check it because you don’t trust it and it will end up effectively being a list of links.

It’s progress though and evidently good enough to find a sweet NSX in Japan, which is all some really need.

Economics is inherently a political venture. Organizing markets is political and obviously impacts politics.

Partly true, but besides the point. Making a blanket statement like "economics says rent control is bad," is only marginally better than saying "physics says nuclear weapons are bad." There is a critical assumption of values which is totally outside the objective of study.