imho it was definitely popular before and altman adopted it to fit in with the online crowd

sama writing like that is not a new thing:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1000015

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=59004

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15 (from literally the first HN thread ever)

Also, it's perhaps somewhat hilarious to suggest that someone who has been chronically online for decades has to do anything to "fit in"

He writes as people who grew up on IRC and similar platforms tend to.

oh okay, I shouldn't have judged that so haphazardly. thx for the references

he's started making videos way before LLMs were able to aid in researching content. He's just good at doing what he does, no tricks there.

They just know it's not going to happen

Not the best counterpoint to the argument IMHO, especially considering there are tens/hundred of thousand of people that do the same as you, and that has only driven rent cost up in the extended Milan metropolitan area, even 30-40 km further away from the city, and with roads that are not nearly capable enough to carry commuters' traffic, it just transforms the underlying issues into massive, daily traffic jams anywhere in the immediate area

What about EU's CRA?

Doesn't really do anything to ensure the end-user truly has ownership over the device and the ability to control what software runs on it. 10 years of security updates is nice (assuming the company making the device doesn't go out of business in that time) but doesn't stop those devices becoming vulnerable after that (and a truly useful device will likely have more than 10 years of useful life). I don't know the specifics of the CRA, but most proposed regulatory solutions I've seen intentionally take control away from the end-user.

The manufacturer is encouraged to open source the product at the end of the life plus the government agencies now have a saying in what is EOL.

If you still sell EOL Products, you have to make sure it is still save, even as distributor.

Take control away from the end-user is a good point, I will keep this in mind.

You are the only one mentioning it.

I think the CRA is the right step in the right direction. Companies can finally be fined when they sell a product that has known vulnerabilities.

This is something that is discussed for years - now we have a definite Law.

And we already see changes: if you install Windows, the first thing it does is to get patches and the start over.

If that someone then takes that work that you're providing for free to other people to build on it, makes a closed source product out of it and gives you no attribution, then you can be darn well sure I want to protect it.

that does not answer at all OP's question.

"It can't get any worse than C++" That's my response. So just use rust. In the long run you'll save time as well.

I hope you're being sarcastic. SPC is necessary because mechanical parts have physical tolerances and manufacturing processes are affected by unavoidable statistical variations; it is beyond idiotic to be provided with a machine that can execute deterministic, repeatable processes and then throw that all into the gutter for mere convenience, justifying that simply because "the time is ripe for SWE to learn statistics"

We don't know how to implement a "deterministic, repeatable process" that can look at a bug in a repo and implement a fix end-to-end.

that is not what OP was talking about though.

LLMs are literally stochastic, so the point is the same no matter what the example application is.

Humans are literally stochastic, so the point is the same no matter what the example application is.

The deterministic, repeatable process of human (and now machine) judgement and semantic processing?

Nor is sticking your head in the sand.

lol you don't know the half of it. Working with ESA for anything but the most trivial project is beyond frustrating; it's basically 99% about producing swathes of documentation, which in itself is more akin to philosophy and semantic dissertations over obscure standards than actual technical work.

ESA is so risk averse that it's even weird for a space company

A good counterexample is the Arctic Weather Satellite project. It was defined as a new space process at ESA, so documentation required was reduced at the minimum, and risk acceptance was increased. Absolutely successful, on time, on budget, contractors happy, end users happy. But it is a small project and still difficult to replicate at large and to spread the mindset to other sections at ESA. Source: me. I work at that project as ground segment engineer.

agreed, but what would you argue are the reasons for this mindset? i imagine the main cause is structural, ie. having to deal with all the member states?

not just the members states but also all the other behemoths stakeholders like Airbus, Thales, OHB and so on, which need to make sure that new missions are as easy to adapt to their preexisting flight heritage as possible