I hate that this has to be an all or nothing conversation. There is a path where technology can deliver benefits without significant harm to individual privacy.
San Francisco has turned the tide on smash and grab crime through license plate readers and drone response. New Hampshire requires law enforcement agencies to delete unflagged license plate data within three minutes of collection. These two conditions can exist at the same time, in the same place, if we don’t allow the narrative to be pulled toward either extreme. Unfortunately that’s very tough to accomplish in today’s political climate in the US.
I don’t disagree, but effective enforcement of the law as it is written has to play a role. There is a kernel of truth behind the broken windows theory of policing. When it’s widely known that the law can’t be reliably enforced, crime escalates, and quality of life deteriorates.
No property on earth is equal to that of a human life. Want to lower property crime? Decrease wealth inequality. It's amazing to me how people who make far more than the average person get so worked up over property crime. I can afford to replace anything of mine that's stolen, it's literally not that big of a deal.
A man has a car. It is stolen. He has insurance, sure. Insurance for others, along with the owner, now go up. That insurance will not pay for the time and energy lost in getting a rental, nor the time and energy loss in reporting the crime. The car is replaced, with what? Hopefully not the one stolen because it is now tainted by damage, ill will, poor operations.
His newer car, which was replaced, now sits and is at once again an object that the previous thief can steal again, and again, and again.
The cycle repeats. The thief, if caught, does not restore the car owner or is even owed compensation. The thief pays in time served, the thief's expenses are paid for by the car owner, through taxes, and the cycle repeats.
End the cycle. End the thief. The value of the human life is set by the thief, not the owner.
The value of human life is non negotiable. Funny to use a car which is one of the worst possible parts of US culture as an example. You solve this problem with public transit and building non-nightmarish, walk-able cities.
Similar take here - I only find value in skills as a way to repeatably carry out tasks that are specific to my workflow; any skills I've seen shared broadly don't seem to add much value beyond what the model itself can already handle.
At work I'll occasionally repurpose a skill that someone else has shared as a starting point, but those skills are already somewhat customized to the environment I operate in.
I have all of my skills maintain a single table in a markdown file with a description of each skill, when it last ran, exceptions it encountered, and when it was last edited.
This piece is so incredibly lazy. It's essentially an inventory of grievances the author has heard, each one poorly articulated and poorly supported. It aims to get points for completeness so it's lengthy, though every argument (even the valid ones!) are an inch deep. It ironically would have benefitted from a simple critique by the Claude of two years ago.
Corey laid out this line of thinking on a July 1 episode of the Galaxy Brain podcast. It was a good listen and I generally think he has some interesting points, but I also can't help but think that he does himself a disservice by having such a consistently negative bias toward AI and tech in general.
Most of the time he comes off as an objective thinker, but those are really discounted by moments where his own dogma leads him down a path of making weakly supported points that seem like they come more from a place of anger.
He doesn't have a negative bias towards tech if you pay attention. He often talks about how he personally uses AI.
He has a negative take on a lot of the business practices around AI and tech. While he is consistently harsh on that front, I don't find it to be weakly supported at all, especially when you realize his criticism is focused on business and implementation, not the tech.
I currently have a Tesla (no CarPlay) and a Volvo EV with a reasonably good CarPlay implementation. I was in the same position as the writer until I experienced great in-vehicle software that I think only Tesla & Rivian can currently offer.
I don't miss CarPlay one bit, and I think a lot of people are brainwashed into thinking it's the only viable option because they've never been exposed to an auto manufacturer who actually knows how to build software ;) The level of software-hardware integration you experience in a Rivian or Tesla is something that CarPlay just can't compete with.
Personally I also don't want Tesla or Rivian to add CarPlay, because the reality is that it's not only additive. If Tesla & Rivian don't continue to nudge their buyers toward their native in-vehicle software CarPlay will continue to dominate simply because people will default to using what they are comfortable with. That will inevitably drive decisions by Tesla & Rivian about where and how they should invest in the in-vehicle experience.
If you want CarPlay, there are plenty of legacy auto manufacturers out there who can give it to you.
> Personally I also don't want Tesla or Rivian to add CarPlay
Unfortunately for you, Tesla is working on adding CarPlay support to their cars (for what I assume is to boost their value and image to potential buyers).
Throughout several communications to developers, they have mentioned changes that lend credibility to this rumor, first in WWDC2026[1] and in 27 as well.
Maybe it's just familiarity, but same. I have a Tesla and I once rented a Toyota BZ whatever that had android auto. It was neat. But I struggled to do basic things. With Tesla I can navigate to the nearest charging station. I could not figure out how to do something as basic as that from the car. I had to use my phone (plug share or whatever) to find a charging station.
I haven't driven a rivian but I've heard their UI is comparable to Tesla.
That said, I don't see why cars need to have bespoke software in the first place. Ideally we have one or two open standards for infotainment systems. Imagine if you used a Dell then you used an HP and then you used an Alienware and they were all different!
What a sad path to see such a bright star going down. I guess it’s not a huge surprise, but it really does paint a bleak picture of technology to see how narrow the range of likely outcomes is. Doesn’t matter if you built the foundation for the future and cured cancer - the most likely outcome is being back to optimizing for engagement and revenue.
Like Anthropic? Due to Altman being a lying psychopath, most of the talent left OpenAI, which is now fighting for its life -- but now they can't claim to have moral high ground or the best researchers anymore; profitability's the only way out remaining to them.
Who knows? It could have always ended up this way anyway. But Altman had a pretty big role in summoning his own competition.
> "To Figma: I can see a world where this post does numbers in the Figma internal Slack. If that’s the case and you’re reading this from Figma: this wouldn’t have happened if you hired me last year when I was interviewing. Your loss, big dawg."
What a counterproductive way to end an otherwise good set of points. Gives the appearance of bitterness and a desire for vengeance.
From time to time I've tried using ChatGPT for financial modeling, and I have to say my experiences don't inspire much confidence.
Just this past week I used it to generate a simple model of a few different scenarios related to an investment property I own.
The first problem I ran into is that it was unable to output a downloadable XLS file. Not a huge deal - it suggested generating CSV tables I could copy/paste into a spreadsheet. The outputs it gave me included commas in a handful of numbers over 1,000 (but not all of them!) which of course shifted cells around when brought into Google Sheets. We pivoted our approach to TSV and solved this problem. Big deal? No. Seemingly basic oversight? Absolutely.
This is where the real fun began. Once I started to scrutinize and understand the model it built, I found incorrect references buried all over the place, some of which would have been extremely hard to spot. Here's my actual exchange with ChatGPT:
- - - - - - - - - -
> Can you check the reference in cell F3? It looks like it's calling back to the wrong cell on the inputs tab. Are there similarly incorrect references elsewhere?
> Yes, F3 is incorrect, and there are multiple other incorrect references elsewhere: (It listed about 30 bulleted incorrect references)
Bottom line -
- Many formulas point to the wrong Inputs row because of the blank lines
- The Sell + Condo section also has a structural design problem, not just bad references.
The cleanest fix is for me to regenerate the entire AnnualModel TSV with:
- all references corrected
- all 15 years included
- the condo scenario modeled properly with a separate housing asset column
- - - - - - - - - -
This was me asking about the exact output I had just received (not something I had made any changes to or reworked.)
There are plenty of domains where I have enough faith and error tolerance to use ChatGPT all day, but this just sends a chill down my spine. How many users are really going to proof every single formula? And if I need to scrutinize to that level of detail, what's the point in the first place?
All this is is evidence that Jack Dorsey had no idea what half the employees at Block were doing before he decided to do layoffs. May he know no peace, wherever he goes.
San Francisco has turned the tide on smash and grab crime through license plate readers and drone response. New Hampshire requires law enforcement agencies to delete unflagged license plate data within three minutes of collection. These two conditions can exist at the same time, in the same place, if we don’t allow the narrative to be pulled toward either extreme. Unfortunately that’s very tough to accomplish in today’s political climate in the US.