Thank you for providing your aviation knowledge to this discussion. What a classic example of tech people thinking that because they're smart, every other industry must be dumb and they can just jump in and fix it.
I also do not like this persistent tone of “everyone else is stupid; software would easily fix it” that pops up so often. Not all problems are easy to fix with some code.
To be clear, though, I don’t even have significant aviation knowledge. But this isn’t hard to learn about. That’s part of what irks me so much about this tone. It’s not just “I’m so smart” it’s “I’m so confident that you’re dumb that I don’t need to know anything about the domain you’re working in to know better than you”. Someone could ask ChatGPT why airports don’t have stoplights to stop traffic from crossing the runway and it would reveal the existence of this system.
Yes, in fact I had considered adding your same thought to my initial comment. It's not impossible that a smart tech person might be able to improve the existing systems. The problem is the arrogance of not even checking what existing systems there might be, as if obviously they'd be too backwards to have any.
Something like that. It feels a bit different because it’s less about overestimating one’s knowledge/ability and more about underestimating the complexity of domains outside one’s expertise. But yeah. Very similar.
Me too, but I don’t like referring to Dunning-Kruger ever for multiple reasons. There are perfectly good labels like cockiness, arrogance, ignorance, presumptuousness, and wrongheaded. ;)
There are many issues with DK, and the paper’s widely misunderstood. For one, the primary figure demonstrates a positive correlation between confidence and competence, so according to DK’s own paper, high confidence is not an indicator of incompetence, contrary to popular belief. The paper also measured things in a very funny way (by having participants rank themselves against other people of unknown skill), and it measured only very simple things (like basic grammar, and ability to get a joke), and it only polled Cornell undergrads (no truly incompetent people), and there were a tiny number of participants receiving extra credit (might exclude the As and Fs in the class). Many smart people have come to the conclusion that DK is a statistical artifact of the way they did their experiment, not a real cognitive bias. Some smart people have pointed out that DK is probably popular because it’s really tempting to believe - we like the idea of arrogant people getting justice. The paper also primes the reader, telling them what to believe even though the title isn’t truly supported by the data. It’s an interesting read that I think would not pass today’s publication criteria.
Agreed, but I see this in every industry. And though it's certainly arrogant on some level, I think of it in a more positive light: people are generally optimistic and want to solve problems.
My grandfather had a rule at his business for 55-ish years: we welcome your ideas and suggestions, but not for the first year. You spend that time learning our processes, decisions behind them, pain points, areas that need improvement, etc. You also spend that time doing the work and hearing from your colleagues. Then you can (hopefully) make informed suggestions. That's not possible in every situation, but I like the intent.
Going in reverse is just as fun as going Eng->LinkedIn. Translating Google's "Advancing Our Amazing Bet" post[0] from LinkedIn Speak to English:
WE'RE SCALING BACK THIS EXPENSIVE EXPERIMENT
Five years ago we told everyone we’d bring Google Fiber to Kansas City, and the goal is still technically to give people fast internet. Back then, nobody had Gigabit speeds and we had no idea if building fiber networks from scratch would actually work or if we could provide decent customer service. Since then, other companies started doing it too, which is fine, I guess.
The team worked hard and we’re making some money, but not enough. I’m supposed to say I’m proud of what we did in five years before I deliver the bad news.
Like any company that's bleeding cash, we have to "pivot" to stay relevant. We’ve "refined our plan," which is corporate speak for cutting costs and changing direction because the current one isn't working. We’re going to stop digging holes in the ground and hope some new wireless technology saves us.
This shift has immediate consequences. If we’ve already started building in your city, we’ll finish it. But for everyone else we’ve been stringing along in "potential Fiber cities," we’re closing the offices and walking away. We appreciate you waiting around for us, but we’re done for now. Because we’re quitting these cities, we’re firing a bunch of people.
As for me, it’s been a long few years trying to turn this mess into a real business. I’ve decided now is the perfect time to quit before things get worse. Larry told me I can stay on as an "advisor" so I don't look like I'm totally jumping ship.
It was a big gamble that didn't really pay off the way we hoped. I’m sure the world will get better internet eventually, just probably not from us. Good luck.
If you include PHEVs along with pure EVs the total is around 12% total sales for 2025, and 4% total on the road. I'm not sure when PHEVs became available overseas but they haven't been an option here for that long. Heaps of hybrids are being sold but for now still mostly of the traditional non-plug-in type.
As alliao says, this is partly because of the way road user charges (RUC) currently work, though that is slated to change in the future.
Hybrids and PHEVs are more complicated given that they are both ICEs and EVs. A pure EV is much cheaper, and many places in the developing world don't have easy access to oil anyways.
Even in the US, our overpriced EVs are cheaper than comparable ICE.
They’re mostly big, and compete with 20mpg models. At $4/gallon, you’ll spend $40K on gasoline to drive a new ICE car 200K miles. The EV premium is typically $10-20K. These are all luxury cars, so a trimline upgrade is often $10K.
EVs have particularly poor resale value (the technology improves rapidly), so if you’re price sensitive you can get a much better deal by buying something a few years old.
In places where competition is allowed, EVs are much cheaper than ICE. That’ll eventually be true in most places. If NZ lets the Chinese models in, I’d expect them to take over immediately.
Model 3s are Honda Accord class, so compacts, not sub-compacts. I haven't seen many sub-compact EVs in the states beyond the Leaf and the Bolt. I’m kind of excited about the new BmW i3, which will be a more normal 3 series size and shape vs the old i3. I won’t buy it of course, I’ve decided I’m not replacing my i4 before a real self driving car is available.
I can't imagine why NZ doesn't allow Chinese EVs in already like Australia has. I would guess it isn’t really about restriction but rather the smaller size of the market.
nz politicians figured out where the tap is to control uptake.. in the name of RUC right now it's tuned so non-plugin hybrid is cheapest, this separates out the price sensitive crowd...
The funny part is, given the geographic proximity and free trade relationship with China, New Zealand could become EV-dominant pretty much as quickly as they want. And as the infrastructure allows - is that a limiting factor?
Without tariffs, the excellent and inexpensive Chinese electric cars might be an attractive option.
I really liked it and all the little interesting ideas within it, like the antimimetic worms that live everywhere. I actually found it very creative and clever. However, I didn't think the recent rewrite was as much of an improvement as others seem to. The later parts were improved but I thought some of the padding out of earlier parts arguably came out worse.
---
Edit:
To give an actual example, Marion's description in the original, from the scene in the video:
She is turning fifty this year and slowly greying, well on her way out of "petite" towards "little old lady".
In the updated edition:
She turns fifty this year. She is diminutive and flint-eyed, very dark-haired but rapidly greying. Today, her hair is strictly pulled back and up into a silver clasp. She wore her good suit for this, one button, very dark grey, with a solid blue blouse underneath. Ankle boots with stout heels, two silver stud earrings in each lobe. Contact lenses, not the usual glasses. On a lanyard around her neck she wears a security pass with a bright orange and red diagonal stripe.
Two uses of 'very dark' right after each other? And I actually liked how snappy the original was but that might be just me.
Another line in this first chapter that I love from the original:
"What…" O5-8 asks carefully, "would happen if we did know?"
becomes in the new edition:
"What…" Mahlo asks carefully, "would happen if we did know what happened to him?"
There were also some examples of sloppy editing in the updated edition, like multiple uses of the word "perimetre" which the author acknowledges was an 'incautious find-and-replace from the US English "meter" to UK English "metre"' https://qntm.org/antimemetics#komment6913d2eb6c240
Which is especially odd because the author (Sam Hughes) lives in the UK and wrote the original in UK English, but apparently wrote the rewrite in US English. For example, a chapter in the original was titled "Case Colourless Green", but in the US edition of the rewrite that chapter is "Case Colorless Green" (without the 'u'). So Hughes, a native UK English speaker, wrote the rewrite in a non-native (to him) dialect, then had it (lazily) translated into his native dialect.
It was probably to deal with the transposition [0] out of the SCP universe into a new one. SCP is vaguely 'set' in the US because that's how a majority of the contributors naturally write and spell things, which sets the voice of the world indirectly.
[0] AKA "filing the serial numbers off" when it's explicitly fanfiction instead of a shared universe model like SCP
I liked it for the interesting ideas within it. My favorite part of a story is the worldbuilding, the author's unique take on an idea, the special ways that different characters think and act. There's not a great deal of artistry I require in the introduction of a 49-year-old greying woman deep in some giant bureaucracy to imagine how other people relate to her, I'm interested more in the idea of a bureaucracy that deals with antimemes.
Perhaps that comes from reading too many online stories - including the whole of qntm's site [1], including the rough drafts. The quality of the editing, prose, or dialog isn't that important to me if the quality of the worldbuilding and the concepts are high enough.
Steam is really good about that kind of thing. Not quite the same, but I have a couple of games on my account that haven't been sold on the store for years, and I can still download them any time. I don't think there's any way for publishers to really remove a game that's already been purchased.
You're correct. It's part of the Steam Publisher Agreement that basically, you can't remove your game from users who have paid for it.
And if you push an update that deletes the files, Valve can, will, and has rolled back the update.
Of course, there's also situations where Valve has assisted in removing titles at developers request, but it was a situation Valve was involved in - Specifically, a game called "The Ship" had a Multiplayer version, and it was built on Source, but they could never quite get it to work correctly, even with Valve's help. Wouldn't sync.
Valve helped them remove the Multiplayer version. (but you still kept the single player.)
They have 60+ rack units with little robot grabbers physically controlling the knobs.
Re analogue summing, yeah it does near nothing in reality. What you're missing though is that what people actually want with analogue summing isn't really technically better sound but technically worse sound. Analogue gear might have a little bit of harmonic distortion, a little bit of crosstalk between channels, certain transformer characteristics etc that theoretically make it sound more glued together or warm etc etc. But ultimately summing is summing and those differences vs. digital are very small (and won't always contribute positively either).
The other problem I always notice on top of all this is that when you pluck a string, it adds tension to it temporarily, so the pitch when you first play it is a little higher than the pitch as it settles down. The louder you play it, the more the effect.
If Microsoft hadn't killed XNA (what MonoGame is based on) a decade ago, they could be packaging it with Copilot right now as the ideal code-first AI-assisted game engine. Easy to use, easy to test, no visual editor where AI will struggle like with Unity/Unreal/Godot.
I am automating Unity with headless method invocation of agent authored editor scripts. I don't think "struggle" is the word I'd use to describe how GPT5.4 is currently performing.
I can tell the agent things like "iterate over all scenes. Wrap lightmap baking in a 5 minute timeout. Identify all scenes that exceed baking time. Inspect the scene objects and identify static geometry with poorly configured light map scale relative to their world space extents."
No. Not yet, anyways. I maintain autonomy over source control at the moment. Headless activity is verified in a separate unity editor instance before I push any commits. I might look into source control tools once I get through perspective and orthographic screenshot tools. Giving the agent a way to see the final composed scene seems much more valuable than SCM automation right now.
For Lazarus (an IDE with visual components similar to Delphi) I switched to code-first components and did away with the form files. You can probably do this with all of these frameworks.
We’re building an AI agent for Delphi — and a major part is it supporting visual form editing. It works. You can see the form change live in the designer as the AI does its stuff.
Right, good that you've got that going, congratulations to you and your team. Design time does make human development much easier, since you are able to see the working prototype run as you design it, not sure what the point is if AI is doing that, since the value is in making the development cycle shorter, which the AI has no use for.
There's a little throwaway thing in the book (or maybe it was in the prequel) that I always liked, re understanding human tendencies. They're still using Unix time, starting in Jan 1st 1970, but given that their culture is so space-travel-focused they assume the early humans set it to coincide with man's first trip to the moon.
reply