I like how your take-away is "the US is untrustworthy now" instead of a more general "tracking databases will always be abused eventually."

The Internet now mostly consists of short-form garbage and dark patterns.

Also,

> He is incredibly compulsive, self-harming, and freely harms his relationships to get what he wants.

This probably indicates deeper psychological issues that aren't solely related to Internet addiction.

Author's life + 75 years (basically infinity) for works owned by individuals.

95 years for works owned by corporations (long enough to become lost and/or irrelevant).

> long enough to become lost and/or irrelevant

For the vast majority of things yes. But thankfully the cream of the crop that does stand the test of time eventually makes it to the public.

There's a copyright for the music itself, but then each recording has its own copyright. Fun, isn't it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_recording_copyright_symb...

Sort of like how the movie Charade staring Carry Grant and Audrey Hepburn is public domain (due to failure to file back when that was required in the 1970's) but the soundtrack is not. So the music is in the pubic domain only when played in the movie but played separately the music is still protected.

That is a nice movie, BTW.

Yeah, but it's a bit far away for China. They prefer harassing their closer neighbors.

In 2023, Balticconnector gas pipeline between Estonia and Finland was broken by a Chinese ship Newnew Polar Bear dragging its anchor in the sea floor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balticconnector#2023_damage_in...

In 2024, another Chinese ship damaged telecom cables in the Baltic Sea area between Sweden and the Baltic countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Baltic_Sea_submarine_cabl...

They prefer to bankroll Russia.

People who dislike LLMs are generally insistent that they're useless for everything and have infinitely negative value, regardless of facts they're presented with.

Anyone that believes that they are completely useless is just as deluded as anyone that believes they're going to bring an AGI utopia next week.

> For some reason, they think its helpful to distractingly pop up chat windows on their site...

Companies have been doing this "live support" nonsense far longer than LLMs have been popular.

There was also source point pollution before the Industrial Revolution. Useless, forced, irritating chat was ‘nowhere close’ to as aggressive or pervasive as it is now. It used to be a niche feature of some CRMs and now it’s everywhere.

I’m on LinkedIn Learning digging into something really technical and practical and it’s constantly pushing the chat fly out with useless pre-populated prompts like “what are the main takeaways from this video.” And they moved their main page search to a little icon on the title bar and sneakily now what used to be the obvious, primary central search field for years sends a prompt to their fucking chatbot.

If you generate the code each time you need it, all version control becomes obsolete.

They'll version control the prompts because the requirements change.

Not if we AI-generate the requirements!

I don't know how it is for you, but I find it rather easy to tell when someone doesn't actually understand what they're talking about.

The sibling comments (from remich and sanufar) match my experience.

1. I do love getting into the details of code, but I don't mind having an LLM handle boilerplate.

2. There isn't a binary between having an LLM generate all the code and writing it all myself.

3. I still do most of the design work because LLMs often make questionable design decisions.

4. Sometimes I simply want a program to solve a problem (outcome-focused) over a project to work on (craft-focused). Sometimes I need a small program in order to focus on the larger project, and being able to delegate that work has made it more enjoyable.

> I do love getting into the details of code, but I don't mind having an LLM handle boilerplate.

My usual thought is that boilerplate tells me, by existing, where the system is most flawed.

I do like the idea of having a tool that quickly patches the problem while also forcing me to think about its presence.

> There isn't a binary between having an LLM generate all the code and writing it all myself. I still do most of the design work because LLMs often make questionable design decisions.

One workflow that makes sense to me is to have the LLM commit on a branch; fix simple issues instead of trying to make it work (with all the worry of context poisoning); refactor on the same branch; merge; and then repeat for the next feature — starting more or less from scratch except for the agent config (CLAUDE.md etc.). Does that sound about right? Maybe you do something less formal?

> Sometimes I simply want a program to solve a purpose (outcome-focused) over a project to work on (craft-focused). Sometimes I need a small program in order to focus on the larger project, and being able to delegate that work has made it more enjoyable.

Yeah, that sounds about right.