Alternativelly, they’ve just been competent in the execution of their less savory intelligence operations and thus not been caught doing something too outrageous.

It makes a lot more sense for China to arrange an “overdose” than shoot somebody in the middle of a busy street in broad daylight from a car with diplomatic plates and a Chinese flag.

Same for all other countries, by the way, though in Autocracies politicians have less to worry if the country ever gets caught murdering people in foreign soil than politicians in Democracies do (though, judging by a century of American murders, even those in supposed Democracies almost never have to worry about it)

What we’re talking about is “The Great Game”, not Tit-Tac-Toe.

Do you have a source for that or is it just a conclusion you reached?

The reason I ask is that I vaguelly remember of seeing somewhere that the way the front of modern ICE cars is designed makes the engine literally fall when a high-speed frontal collision happens exactly so that the front can act as a crumple zone rather than the engine being pushed inside the passenger compartment. That being so, things aren’t quite as simple as you say and I think we need actual real world test results showing that difference in safety rather than mere expectations extrapolated from superficial knowleged about cars.

Now is a very good time to exercise one’s Delayed Gratification ability.

Cogito, ergo sum

As a random person on the Internet I don’t actually have anything to add but felt it would be nice to jump in.

If there had been a “Buy 10, Get 1 free” they could’ve used 11 humans instead of 10 for the same $250.

There’s a reason present day “AI-in-everything” Microsoft bought a code hosting company.

“We’re not as bad as the worst of the worst” isn’t the gotcha you seem to think it is.

Yet.

And how exactly do we know for certain that all that juicy web access data complete linked to whatever identifying information associated with a Mozilla account isn’t going to be sold?!

Well, it is supposed to go boom

After the 1974 revolution that overthrew Fascism Portugal had a couple of decades of being quite Leftwing during which it massivelly invested in Education, including tertiary education, so the generations now in their 50s and younger almost universally learned English language at a school and include a large proportion of people with higher degrees.

There was also a period in the 80s/90s with some investment in adult education and that coincided with the fast growth of personal computing around here.

Then add to that that fixed Internet is quite cheap (a TV + unlimited 200Mb fibre + fixed phone line monthly packets costs around €45 and recently some even cheaper and faster providers have entered the local market, so for example I pay €15/month for 1 Gbps fibre) and almost universally fibre, possibly because unlike in countries like the UK the incumbent telecom operator in Portugal for whatever reason didn’t really manage to or tried to block the replacement of older internet access technologies with Fiber (I was living abroad at the time, so I don’t know for sure, but the period with maybe the only half-way decent non-crooked government - led by the guy who now heads the UN - kinda overlaps with the time with fixed Internet started spreading, so maybe they actually did some proper, Northern-Europe quality legislation around data access infrastructure which yielded a far more competitive market than you see in places like the UK).

I suspect some or all of these things explain why in this specific domain Portugal looks a lot more like smaller Northern European countries than it’s tradition of being a Chunk Of South-America in Europe would lead one to expect.

You are correct.

A little digging shows that unlike the CE mark in the EU for electronics, “UL certification isn’t mandatory, but may be required when selling electronic items to retailers”.

UL certification is a requirement for an electric or electronic product to be licensed for sale to consumers in the US. This is enforced on US manufacturers of a product and on importers.

Whilst people buying something from AliExpress for personal use and importing it themselves don’t have to obbey such requirements, those importing them or making them for sale in the US do.

The CE mark does the same thing in the EU.

No idea if in the US there are further licensing requirements for things to be connected to the grid that would close the importing for personal use loophole.

In the age of MBA management, the removal of resilience such as fallback systems because “they’re doing nothing” is the norm.

Nowadays Engineering stuff isn’t done according to Engineering Principles if it conflicts with short term profit maximization.

Since America and Israel attacked Iranian Economic Interests when they bombed oil producing facilities, it’s entirelly fair for Iran to respond in kind.

I actually made money from NOT putting any of my investment money in NFTs and instead putting it somewhere else.

Then again, from the very start the NFT mania looked like a more obvious and dumb version of the Tulip Bulb mania, so I can hardly claim great wisdom from not having put a cent in it.

Exactly.

The best way to learn is to have done the work yourself with all the mistakes that come from not knowing certain things, having wrong expectations or forgetting to account for certain situations, and then get feedback on your mistakes, especially if those giving the feedback know enough to understand the reasons behind the mistakes of the other person.

Another good way to learn is by looking through good quality work from somebody else, though it’s much less effective.

I suspect that getting feedback on work of “somebody” else (the AI) which isn’t even especially good, yields very little learning.

So linking back to my previous post, even though the AI process wastes a lot of time from a more senior person, not only will the AI (which did most of the implementation) not learn at all, but the junior dev that’s supposed to oversee and correct the AI will learn very little thus will improve very little. Meanwhile with the process that did not involve an AI, the same senior dev time expenditure will have taught the junior dev a lot more and since that’s the person doing most of the work yielded a lot more improvement next time around, reducing future expenditure of senior dev time.

Just to add to this:

• When a senior dev reviews code from a more junior dev and gives feedback the more junior person (generally) learns from it.
• When a senior dev reviews code from an AI, the AI does not learn from it.

So beyond the first order effects you pointed out - the using of more time from more experience and hence expensive people - there is a second order effect due of loss of improvement in the making of code which is both persistent and cumulative with time: every review and feedback of the code from a junior dev reduces forever the future need for that, whilst every review and feedback of the code from an AI has no impact at all in need for it in the future.

Given enough time, the total time wasted in reviews and feedback for code from junior devs is limited - because they eventually learn enough not to do such mistakes - but the total time wasted in reviews and feedback for code from an AI is unlimited - because it will never improve.