> An individual's susceptibility to a vice is an individual problem.
Maybe if you're Tom Hanks in Castaway. In real life, people contract lung damage from secondhand smoke; homes are mortgaged to fund gambling habits; families are destroyed by drunk drivers.
That's not to say that people can't partake in their vices responsibly. But the idea that any harms are limited to the person with the problem is just not true.
Sure, there isn't a silver bullet that magically prevents all possible harm while also imposing no burden or inconvenience. The basis of my view is that the non-existence of such a framework is a terrible reason to have no protective framework at all.
1. Gives the person more opportunities to reconsider.
2. Gives loved ones more opportunities to notice what's happening and intervene.
There's a world of difference between refinancing your home by visiting a bank several times over a period of a few weeks and refinancing your home by tapping a few buttons on your phone.
The difference convenience makes to the rate of making errors in judgement is actually so obvious that even military equipment will have additional steps you have to take to enable lethal weapons/eject/etc.
In general, I can. In LaGuardia? Aside from right after 9/11 and during COVID-19 when almost all commercial travel stopped, I cannot.
I don't think people saying this stuff quite understand how busy LGA is even at night. I'd even go as far as to say that three minimum on duty with two in the tower at all times (for a ground/air split), would be the bare minimum for any hour or situation at LGA.
It does quiet down eventually. There's no scheduled departures 22:55-5:45 and only a handful of arrivals 23:59-6:45.
However, arrivals stay pretty heavy right up until 23:59 even on schedule and if you've got a lot of delayed flights (not exactly uncommon at LGA) - you may still have a lot of departures going out in the 23:00 hour.
I would not be surprised to learn that they're staffed to an appropriate level for what the schedule says is supposed to be operating at that time, but a very inadequate level for what actually winds up operating at that time on many days.
Initial analysis suggests they were running about 75% of full capacity in flight ops in the 15min prior to the accident. I doubt they were staffed to 75% of the daytime peak.
When the airport is closed, in case there was an emergency that needed to reroute. One person on then makes sense?
La Guardia appears to handle 400 flights a day, 22 an hour. I see 6 moving planes right now (https://www.flightradar24.com/airport/lga); hopefully they have more than one person on?
400 flights a day is 16-17 per hour and those are going to be mostly during the day. As someone else points out there is a ~6 hour stretch overnight with no scheduled departures. That's somewhat common even at large hubs.
I don't want to blow your mind but if the airport closes there aren't going to be any controllers in the tower.
Is he? I can see the number of hours worked as evidence of a shortage, but prima facie it is not obvious that a single controller handling both ground and air is evidence of a 'shortage' if it is routinely considered feasible in the industry. It could just be an efficiency choice for low-traffic times. Based on some googling since I'm not an expert it seems this is called 'position combining' in the US and is pretty routine across the world. Therefore, if this is a problem the primary cause cannot be US policy because non-US airports also do this thing.
While searching I did find this other document where a GC (LC appears to be Local Control for local air traffic and GC is ground control) controller complains about combining due to short-staffing https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=19837915&Fi...
Well, it'll be an interesting report from the NTSB at least.
An obvious issue is going to be that while it's supposed to be a lower-traffic time, if you've had delays cascading down the day - it may not be in reality. If the staffing doesn't adjust for delays shifting the time of flights, it would probably often leave you with an overworked controller.
Looking at the normal schedules - if all is on schedule there'd be no departures in the 23:00 hour but you'd still have the arrivals side running pretty heavily. However, once you factor in things not being on schedule, as they evidently were not on that night, you get:
----------
The 15min before the accident had 14 flight operations (per Juan Browne/blancolirio going through the ADSB playback). And that's in marginal weather and at night, which makes things more complicated.
That is 75% of the official maximum capacity of the airport - during the main part of the day where there's government-imposed caps on flights, it's capped at 74 operations per hour or about 18.5 per 15min.
As such, it seems apparent that you would need just as much staffing (or at least 75% as much) at that time to safely handle the traffic volume that was occurring that night as you did in the main part of the day.
Unless the normal staffing here was just 2 people, it seems clear that 1 is inadequate.
They would be smart enough to know/assume it’s a rigged game they are playing and stay away from it. The veil of laws and regulations is a lie when they’re not enforced
> Mypy exists. Mypy is optional. Optional means it’s not there. I’ve never seen a Python project where mypy covers 100% of the code with strict mode. I’ve seen hundreds where it covers the 20% someone added last quarter. The other 80% is Any, all the way down.
This is your project, is it not? Can you not simply tell the agent to cover 100% of the code?
Notably, types in TypeScript are also optional, but LLMs don't seem to have any problem generating fully type-safe code without `any` (though you do need to gently nudge them on occasion, or run a linter that forbids it). I don't see why they'd choke so hard on Mypy.
> Anthropic already enforce usage limits for everyone. If those limits are higher than what they want users to actually consume, that's Anthropic's problem.
I mean, OpenCode is the one changing their app here. So it kinda seems like it's actually everyone else's problem.
Depends what the situation is, if the rents are absurdly high where you can undercut them and still profit then of course they would rather build more. If they are getting close to cost price, developers won't build more to lower it beyond that. At that point if you want to lower prices more you'd have to look at lowering the cost of construction.
Developers usually want to buy land, build house/apartment, and sell house/apartment.
They want to flow as much as possible - so if there are unlimited building spots you get a smattering of various options being built as they all find there niche.
If the building lots are rare, then they all will be built into the most expensive possibility.
I don't think "regulate all their actions, imprison them, kill all humans" is the logical conclusion of "prediction markets incentivize antisocial behavior".
I pointed out the very specific major flaw, which is that it had one not entirely relevant source, which makes sense for a high school newspaper.
I'm sure that high school journalism has some great outliers, but in general, I don't think we're the intended audience, nor that the journalistic standards are up to what we'd expect from a better source.
Did you read the article? It's six tiny paragraphs and provides hardly any actual data or reporting.
If this was a positive piece about AI of similar quality, I can't help but suspect you'd be responding differently.
It wasn't about the identity of the author. It was about the identity of the institution, which is not designed to have the rigor and other institutional structures of a proper journalistic organization.
I just meant to convey that "don't post a news piece from a high school newspaper" is a reasonable rough heuristic that might want to be applied before posting something here.
> The only source quoted on the water issue is an EE professor from a school in California, who I am guessing is not a subject matter expert on water in Washington state.
No they don’t. Do you really believe that? Maybe on certain niche issues the opinions of a HS student are useful, but mostly they are still growing into some understanding that can contribute in a meaningful way. Which means mostly their opinions are dumb and useless.
I mean, take your position to its natural conclusion: there are people who understand more than you about basically any given topic, which means your opinions are dumb and useless.
This is absolutely true for many topics. There is a threshold of expertise where opinion that does not meet that threshold has no value.
There is also a large gray area where there is sufficient expertise such that the opinion might have value. And then there is some point quite bit after that where someone has sufficient expertise such that it is very important to take what they say on the subject seriously.
I occupy the first two regions in almost all areas, possibly all.
High school students occupy the first area almost exclusively.
The section you linked to says the decision was non-binding, and the next section includes multiple quotes disputing the idea that such a legal requirement exists.
What do you mean, "hallucinates and kills people"? Killing people is the thing the military is using them for; it's not some accidental side effect. It's the "moral choice" the same way a cruise missile is — some person half a world away can lean back in their chair, take a sip of coffee, click a few buttons and end human lives, without ever fully appreciating or caring about what they've done.
I'm sure it was meant as "kills the wrong people."
People are always worried about getting rid of humans in decision-making. Not that humans are perfect, but because we worry that buggy software will be worse.
The people that actually target and launch these things do think about what they have done. It is the people ordering them to do it that don't. There is a difference, I hope.
Maybe if you're Tom Hanks in Castaway. In real life, people contract lung damage from secondhand smoke; homes are mortgaged to fund gambling habits; families are destroyed by drunk drivers.
That's not to say that people can't partake in their vices responsibly. But the idea that any harms are limited to the person with the problem is just not true.
reply