> I mean, that's what I'd do if I could afford to hire a person to operate those tools for me. That, again, is the best mental model for LLMs - they're little people on a chip, cheaper to employ than actual people.
Sounds like more of a threat to people than software then.
I get the point that if an agent could generate a presentation by directly writing to some open format with a free viewer then PowerPoint would be out of the picture.
However the tool has to be pretty close to 100% for that to work. If I have a presentation that's 90% there it's probably going to be a lot easier to finish it off manually in Powerpoint than try different variants of prompts. In which case I'll still need that Powerpoint license.
I think HVDC is a more important component in smoothing out demand/supply than you give it credit for, especially if you add wind into the mix.
In terms of security - one of the reasons nuclear power stations are so expensive is they have to survive a targeted plane crash etc - they are expensive high profile targets.
In the end the renewables model is a much more distributed model of generation, storage and consumption ( rather than a few massive power stations ) - so with a proper grid you could argue you would have fewer single points of failure, and increased resilence.
Nuclear power plants are not expensive per unit of power delivered.
"distributed" sounds good as long as you don't think about it too much, because that distribution does not actually buy you decorellation: all these "distributed" plants produce very much in lockstep due to external factors (day/night, weather, seasons) that are extremely correlated, much more than any set of nuclear power plants ever could be.
Intermittent renewables do not increase resilience, they massively reduce resilience. In Germany, redispatch has increased more than tenfold in order to keep the grid stable in light of the destabilizing influence of intermittents that have been introduced. Spain just suffered their blackout last year with over a hundred deaths due to this destabilization (though the PR is trying everything to deflect the blame).
> because that distribution does not actually buy you decorellation
It does it if your interconnects make the grid scale large enough, and it does if you consider distributed generation and storage as part of the overall system.
Sure if you take a grid designed for centralised on-demand generation, and apply that to renewable generation then you'll have problems. However I'm not suggesting that.
I'm also not suggesting something that has no emergency on-demand generation capacity.
> they massively reduce resilience.
I'm not talking about renewables alone - but in tandem with a grid infrastructure that has reach across timezones, multiple layers of distributed generation and storage.
Note nuclear powerstations are not as reliable as you might think - they often go offline.
> grid infrastructure that has reach across timezones,
"Night" reaches across more time-zones than you can build your grid across.
Never mind "winter".
> nuclear powerstations are not as reliable as you might think - they often go offline.
Define "often".
They are actually a lot more reliably than you seem to think: the capacity factor of the US fleet, for example, was >90% for the last decade(s). And that <10% offline time includes the planned refueling/inspection/maintenance times.
> Night" reaches across more time-zones than you can build your grid across.
> Never mind "winter".
Demand isn't at an even level across the night ( high early evening, low 3 am ) - if your grid spans time-zones you can smooth that out, and renewables span more than solar. Wind doesn't stop at night, hydro doesn't stop at night etc.
> nuclear powerstations are not as reliable as you might think - they often go offline.
Maybe it's a UK thing with nuclear reactors operating beyond their initial design life - but there was a situtation last year where the majority of them were down at the same time and the UK had to make high use of our interconnect with france ( using their nuclear capacity ). In the UK the 2025 nuclear output was 12% down on the previous year due to outages.
The point here is that a grid that expands beyond national boundaries - helps in general, not just specifically for renewables. And before you go on about energy sovereignty - where do you think the Uranium comes from?
> VC by default are founder friendly in my experience.
Founders are only one stakeholder. There are employees ( I think they fall into that category ), customers, suppliers, and the wider society.
It all comes back to why does the company exist - and for which stakeholders. I think that's the point the original author is making.
I don't buy the argument that making money in the end is a perfect surrogate for overall good - it's not - it's an imperfect surrogate - and to pretend it is a perfect surrogate is just an excuse to behave like an arsehole.
To make that concrete, let's say you are a chemical company making paints - really important job, paints are needed the cheaper you can make them, the more people can have them etc, but if you knowingly pollute a local river just because you can get away with it and increase your profits - saying that increased profits justifies polluting the river based on the assumption that river pollution is correctly priced ( free ) is an obvious convenient excuse to be a selfish arsehole.
I dont this wisdom can be applied generically. Lets consider your example, if leader or founder comes across the fact that a river is getting polluted whether it makes profit or not, they will not take that decision as it would impact longer term.
What you are mixing is founder led business vs ceo led business. CEO often takes a short term view, when stakeholders are PE Firm, wall street, short term gains are prioritized. But for, a long term investor, would not incentivize you to take calls that would harm in long run.
What could be wrong is that, you wouldnt know all the consequences and causality of your decisions and thats very human thing in my opinion.
Not sure why you went the founder versus CEO route - wasn't particularly picking on founders.
The general point is that leaders are people and many CEO/founders are decent, hardworking, brave people, and some people are arseholes - and I just wanted to highlight one of the excuses arseholes make for their behaviour.
Also note I have no special insight into the specific situation the original poster talked about - I do know working out how to hand on a company you've grown and led to the next generation is one of the hardest challenges.
That's not to say there isn't a lot to say about the positive power of markets - it's just that simplifying that to 'if I'm making money therefore it must be a societal optimal outcome' kind of justification is BS.
Clearly LLMs are tools which can be used for good or ill. The supplier of raw chemicals to the paint factory isn't really responsible for the river pollution.
However you are right to point out there is a problem. Typically societies ( via governments ) try and fix by appropriately pricing the behaviours via regulation/laws ( fines or prison for the people doing it ).
However making regulation/laws is hard. What's your proposal to fix the problem you've identified?
Has anybody built a UI around the opposite? Shrinking?
ie rather that zooming in on the content of interest, shrinking the content not of interest?
Long time ago I used to use https://www.windowmaker.org/ as my X11 window manager and one of the features I really liked was the ability to shrink a window to an icon and place that icon on the desktop for future retrieval ( a bit like having the whole desktop like the MacOS dock ).
I find such an interface easier to navigate than one where you zoom in and out - where the it's too easy to lose overall context, and where navigation is a bit too linear/hierarchical.
Apple via customers paying for the whole solution ( eg a laptop that can run decent local models )?
I think Apple had something in the region of 143 billion in revenue in the last quarter.
Not saying it will happen - just that there are a variety of business models out there and in the end it all depends on where consumers put their money.
I think for people starting out - rule 5 isn't perhaps that obvious.
> Rule 5. Data dominates. If you've chosen the right data structures and organized things well, the algorithms will almost always be self-evident. Data structures, not algorithms, are central to programming.
If want to solve a problem - it's natural to think about logic flow and the code that implements that first and the data structures are an after thought, whereas Rule 5 is spot on.
Conputers are machines that transform an input to an output.
> If want to solve a problem - it's natural to think about logic flow and the code that implements that first and the data structures are an after thought, whereas Rule 5 is spot on.
It is?
How can you conceive of a precise idea of how to solve a problem without a similarly precise idea of how you intend to represent the information fundamental to it? They are inseparable.
Obviously they are linked - the question is where do you start your thinking.
Do you start with the logical task first and structure the data second, or do you actually think about the data structures first?
Let's say I have a optimisation problem - I have a simple scoring function - and I just want to find the solution with the best score. Starting with the logic.
for all solutions, score, keep if max.
Simple eh? Problem is it's a combinatorial solution space. The key to solving this before the entropic death of the universe is to think about the structure of the solution space.
I mean - no. If you're coming to a completely new domain you have to decide what the important entities are, and what transformations you want to apply.
Neither data structures nor algorithms, but entities and tasks, from the user POV, one level up from any kind of implementation detail.
There's no point trying to do something if you have no idea what you're doing, or why.
When you know the what and why you can start worrying about the how.
Iff this is your 50th CRUD app you can probably skip this stage. But if it's green field development - no.
Sure context is important - and the important context you appear to have missed is the 5 rules aren't about building websites. It's about solving the kind of problems which are easy to state but hard to do (well) .
> c) goes against the concept of true democracy (which I like
You mean one person, one vote. Or in the case of Twitter/X - one person one voice/account.
Don't spaces like these become dominated by fanatics or money, or fanatics with money? All trying to manufacture consent?
Unregulated != democratic
Just like unregulated != free market [1]
Sure it's difficult to get the balance right - but a balance is required.
[1] As the first step of anybody competing in an unregulated market is to fix the market so they don't have to compete - create a cartel, monopoly, confusopoly ( deny information required for the market to work ) etc etc.
That's not direct democracy though. Here you refer to voting a representative, who may do anything.
Direct democracy means people decide on things directly. It is probably not possible since not everyone has enough time to read every law, so representatives may have to be used but it could be that the people can decide on individual laws and wordings directly. We don't seem to have that form anywhere right now.
Sure direct and representative democracy are different, but this is a bit of a tangent.
What I was trying to say above is that having an unregulated space doesn't mean it's therefore naturally representative of the underlying population.
The key differentiator between a democracy and other systems is the idea that you have one person one vote, and power isn't distributed on the basis of money or some other feature.
All I'm saying is, in a totally unregulated online space you'll get dominance by fanatics with money ( if it's important ) .
See, for a comedic treatment, Peter Cook's The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer (1970), co-written by Peter Cook, John Cleese, Graham Chapman and Billington.
Relying on a combination of charisma and deception—and murder—he then rapidly works his way up the political ladder to become prime minister (after throwing his predecessor off an oil rig).
Rimmer introduces direct democracy by holding endless referendums on trivial or complex matters via postal voting and televoting, which generates so much voter apathy that the populace protests against the reform.
Having introduced direct democracy in a bid to gain ultimate power, Rimmer holds a last vote to 'streamline government', which would give him dictatorial powers; with the populace exhausted, the proposal passes.
>accompanied by efforts to rebuild and maintain social trust: swift, visible accountability when corruption is discovered
This is essential - too often what we see is persecution of whistle-blowers instead ( with the wrong-headed logic that it's the revealing of wrong doing that's somehow the problem, rather than the wrong doing itself ).
The idea of a second chamber is not controversial. The argument is how you populate it.
Elected - you have the problem of two chambers claiming legitimacy and potential deadlock, and also the problem of potentially having the same short term view as the other elected chamber.
Appointed - who gets to appoint, on what criteria, who are they beholden to ( ideally unsackable once appointed - I want them to feel free to say what they really think ).
Inherited - Very unlikely to represent the population. No quality filter. Potentially a culture of service built up - and free to say what they think.
Random. - More likely to represent the population. No quality filter.
You can obviously have a mix of all or any of the above.
In my view, the ideal second chamber would be full of people of experience, who are beholden to nobody (unsackable), that represented a broad range of views, with a culture of service.
I'm against a fully elected second house - as that's not really adding anything different to the first house. Appointed has worked quite well in the past, but it has become more and more abused recently as the elected politicians have two much control.
Abused is probably an understatement. The Tories made some extremely questionable and bizarre appointments in their recent terms. We have the son of Russian oligarch sitting there! Inexplicable advisors whose appointment is a mystery even after FOIA requests. And extreme partisans like Jacob Rees Mogg and Priti Patel.
Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house. That should at least offer some prevention of peerages as favours, as they quite clearly have been used.
> Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house. That should at least offer some prevention of peerages as favours, as they quite clearly have been used.
You'd get party political trading - we will vote for your pick if you vote for our pick - but perhaps it will help at the margins - the obviously embarrassing would be harder to squeeze through.
The problem is the current process relied a bit too much on people being trustworthy - as you say that's kinda fallen away recently - and obviously the election of Trump show how dangerous it is for a process to rely on people being decent and not abuse the trust. Which is a shame as trusting people gives people the leeway to do the right thing.
In terms of JRM or Patel - while they are not my cup of tea, I think there is value in senior politicians becoming members of the Lords almost by default ( like senior judges or religious leaders ) - as to some extent it does reflect what people have voted for in the past and they have valuable experience. However perhaps it's too early in their cases.
An age limit has been talked about - but normally in terms of upper age - I wonder if it wouldn't be better as an age threshold - you have to have retired and be no longer 'on the make'. Sure that means no young people in the second chamber - but ultimately being representative is the commons role, the second chamber is for experienced people to tell the commons not to be hasty and do more work.
It's very tricky to balance right that's for sure. Agreed that it opens the door to behind the scenes deals. But marginal improvements are still better than whatever the hell we have now.
In the case of Priti Patel she was fired from government for having secret/undisclosed meetings with Israel to recognise some contested land (IIRC). That should be an instant disqualifier for a lifelong peerage.
> That should be an instant disqualifier for a lifelong peerage.
Again the current process does have an element of that - MI5 et al have a look at the list and say 'reputational risk'. "That's a very brave choice minster.."
However, as with Mandelsons appointment to the Lords and US ambassador, it's clearly being ignored - but then who better than the PM of the day to have the final say - the problem is somebody has to - and if you take it away from the PM - then it potentially becomes undemocratic.
Perhaps one improvement would be the removal of the tradition of exiting PM's creating a nomination list - when they no longer care about what the public think - a bit like Joe Biden outrageously pardoning his son.
>Imo they should be proposed and voted on by the house.
Then why wouldn’t the house just stuff them with people that will agree with everything they do and remove any checks and balances? You only need one house at that point.
In part because the composition of the commons changes over time - so if the term timescales are different then they won't necessarily agree at any point in time - but I do agree it would potentially become too politicised if you had that kind of vote.
Ultimately in the UK system, the commons has the final say ( ignoring the monarch in the room here ), so most of the time what the Lords do isn't typically a big public issue - it's quiet revision, have you thought of this?, type stuff. Not that common to have a big conflict - though it does happen.
Sounds like more of a threat to people than software then.
I get the point that if an agent could generate a presentation by directly writing to some open format with a free viewer then PowerPoint would be out of the picture.
However the tool has to be pretty close to 100% for that to work. If I have a presentation that's 90% there it's probably going to be a lot easier to finish it off manually in Powerpoint than try different variants of prompts. In which case I'll still need that Powerpoint license.
reply