Seriously - their best stuff is in NIC's, embedded (n100 etc), wifi, chipsets, etc.

Sounds like they're gonna 86 all that.

Meanwhile Chinese foundries will be delighted with RISC-V parts at 19% gross.

Somebody told me they hired an engineer to run the place - guess not.

It seems like a potentially bigger threat to any adventures outside of their 'core' products they want to try.

If I'm just buying a CPU from them that's a fairly low risk bet. Very mature compiler target; more or less a known quantity once benchmarks are available barring the discovery of some issue serious enough to be RMA material. Even if they decide to quit on that specific flavor of CPU the ones I have and the remaining stock should continue to just work until nobody really cares anymore.

If it's something that requires a lot more ongoing investment, though, like targeting Intel for GPU compute or one of the fancy NICs with a lot of vendor specific offload onboard, I'm going to have bad day if my effort is only applicable for one generation because there's no follow-up product; and a really bad day if something goes from 'a little rough but being rapidly polished' to 'life support'.

Even back when they made money Intel never had a great track record for some of that stuff; they've always got something goofy going on the client side that they lose interest in relatively quickly; like that time when optane cache was totally going to be awesome; or the more recent abandonment of 'deep link technology' that was supposed to do some sort of better cooperation between integrated and discrete GPUs; but that stuff is more on the fluff side so it hasn't really mattered.

The rest of your comment is basically correct, if unnecessarily negative, but this isn't. Traditional tools like diff make it very easy to see exactly what has changed. In practice, I rely on git, staging all of the iteration's changes ("git add .") before telling the AI to fix whatever needs fixing, then "git diff" to see what it did (or use the equivalent git operations in your IDE if you don't like the command line and unified diffs).

I also find it's helpful to make the AI keep iterating until the code builds and passes the unit tests before I bother taking a real look at what it has done. I don't even bother to read the compiler errors or test failure messages, I just paste them in the AI chat. Once the AI has something that appears to work, then I look at it. Normally, the code is functional and correct, though it's often not structured the way I'd like. Eventually it iterates to something I think is good, though the LLMs have a tendency to over-comment, so I tend to manually delete a lot of comments while doing the final review pass.

I actually find this mode of operation to be surprisingly efficient. Not so much because it gets the code written faster but because I can get other stuff done, too, because I mostly don't mentally context switch while the AI is working and compiles and tests are running.

This mode is probably easier for people who are experienced and comfortable with doing code reviews. Looking at what the AI has done is remarkably similar to looking at the output of a competent but inexperienced programmer.

It does a pretty good job at the obvious flows, both positive and negative cases. But where coverage is inadequate you can iterate quite easily and automatically with a coverage tool. Just take the coverage tool output and feed it to the LLM. I have found that I don't even need to prompt it what to with the coverage, it understands what the tool output means and what it should do in response.

Like with the compiler and testrunner, what would really make this work well is if the AI could run the coverage tool itself so it could iterate without my interaction. With that, I could just tell it to write unit tests for a given module and give it a numeric coverage threshold it needs to meet, or to explain why the threshold can't be met.

I expect that the resulting tests would be very mechanistic, in the sense that they would aim to cover every branch but without much sense of which ones really matter and which ones don't. But maybe not. The LLM regularly surprises me with its apparent understanding not only of what code does, but of why. Regardless, review would be needed, and I'd undoubtedly want to make some changes... but I'll bet it would get me at least 75% of the way to a comprehensive test suite with minimal effort.

I own a tiny indie studio in Chicagoland and my peers own the some of the huge studios in Chicagoland.

Cinespace is dead right now. It has ONE show active. The other studios are so dead that they're secretly hosting bar mitzvahs and pickleball tournaments for $1500 a day just to pay property taxes.

My studio is surprisingly busy but I'm cheap and cater to non-union folks with otherwise full time jobs.

Makes sense.

Could be worse than that. One year I had a problem that my brokerage reported all of my gains but failed to report the cost basis. This was on a bunch of Restricted Stock Unit sales which happened automatically when the stock vested, so the actual capital gains are always very close to zero, since the sale occurs minutes after the vesting. But from the 1099-B it appeared I had 100% gains on a bunch of stock sales that approximately equal my annual salary (about half of my income is stock). Worse, taken at face value would have taxed me on that money twice, since the vesting counts as normal income and is taxable income reported on the W-2, then the sale counts as a 100% short-term capital gain.

What would happen in your scheme in such a situation is that the government's pre-filled form would show up as a massive tax bill. Assuming the taxpayer survived the resulting heart attack, they'd just have to file a return that shows the correct cost basis. So it's fine; no worse than the status quo, and better for most people.

The point is that the tax code is contradictory so if they want to prosecute YOU they absolutely can.

It's how they got Al Capone and they've indicted Roger Ver for daring to say Bitcoin is broken by making up completely novel and new interpretations of tax code never before applied to anybody, much less a former citizen, and that's after he asked them how much he owed and paid it.

At the same time Trump is investing in BTC in his businesses and needs NGU.

Three things are inevitable: death, taxes, and corruption.

Or you could just fire most of the IRS staff and reduce their capacity that way... which the party currently in charge is already happily doing, so I'm not sure why you think reducing their capacity by burying them in paper would cause a reversal. It would just make it even easier for wealthy people with long, complicated returns to cheat outrageously, confident the IRS doesn't have the capacity to audit them. That is the GOP's goal.

Sure. And on that same form you can also report all of the other details they might not have, like whether you bought an EV or installed home efficiency upgrades that qualify for a tax credit, and what charitable donations you made that are tax deductible, and what your state and local taxes are, and... you get the point. Just to be sure, maybe you should also include the details you're sure they do have. And given that there's some ambiguity in the law about how some of this stuff fits together as well as some choices you get to make, maybe you could also do the calculations.

You've just reinvented the 1040.

This one is completely solvable, but the place you have to start is not with the forms and flow of information, the place you have to start is the tax code and the laws regulating what other entities have to report, and are allowed to report.

For example, consider state and local taxes. Two options: Either you eliminate the state and local tax deduction on federal income taxes or you require all state and local tax entities to report your payments to them. This also means that all of those entities have to have a way to uniquely identify you. We abuse the social security number (which was not intended to be used as an identifier for anything except the social security program) for this, and that's probably fine in this case, though it's also possible that the Privacy Act restricts it in some cases, so the law might have to be tweaked there, too.

For the charitable donations case, same options: Either eliminate the tax deduction or require all charities to report donations, which will require you to give your social security number to them. I'm not sure how people would feel about having to provide their SSN to Goodwill when they drop off some old furniture.

Same with EV. If you want to keep the tax credits, auto dealers will have to report to the IRS. At least you already more or less have to give them your SSN.

Same with energy efficiency upgrades, except that's complicated by the fact that some people buy the units themselves and install them, so Home Depot et al have to begin reporting to the IRS, and you have to give them your SSN, while other people hire a contractor, who will have to do the reporting, and to whom you'll have to provide your SSN.

And so on across the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other issues.

Yes, most people don't have any of these other issues in a given year (except state and local taxes), so a compromise might be a simple system for people who just have W-2 income and take the standard deduction, and no other complications. It's hard to see how it could be simplified for anyone with more complex taxes, though, unless the tax code was overhauled to simply eliminate all of the deductions and credits.

When discussing automobile transmissions, "five gears" is shorthand for "five gear ratios". We usually don't include the last word because there's no need, but the terminology is not inaccurate, just not fully articulated. Well, it's still kind of inaccurate because reverse is usually a different gear ratio than any of the forward selections, and I suppose you could consider neutral to be a gear ratio.

We also talk about bikes as having 15 gears, again failing to articulate the "ratio" -- and a bike with 15 gear ratios has 8 gears in its drive train, so it's clear we're talking about ratios, not the number of toothed wheels. This is entirely consistent with automotive terminology, where we talk about a car as having five gears or being a five speed.

(Okay, I take that back: there's one version in which I'd be okay with them lionizing Sam, but it'd have to involve actual lions)

I don't like any of these people but those who use the service have infinitely better privacy guarantees with Regeneron than Wojcicki.

FDA would clobber a drug company for selling genetic data to advertising or insurance companies.

Which may be why the Tech Bros have a pile of cash to hijack the Court process.

Don't forget about Bankruptcy - suppliers get stiffed by Courts.

If it's a start-up/salary/loss/bankruptcy scheme the payers are the suppliers of product, rent, investors, utilities, etc.

Not that I've seen any evidence of misdeeds in this case. Just be careful in assuming Bankruptcy isn't corporate welfare.

Invoicing has its conveniences but it's a tradeoff with cash-on-the-barrel certainty.

Personally I prefer cash and prepaid services. YMMV.

The issue is going to be if the malicious actor "permanently deleted" the AWS and Github accounts. Domain registration, DNS, internal checkout scripts tied to a github account, etc.

The backups, if they exist, are the easy part of this DR Scenario.

Not that anybody writes DR plans anymore or that any of the Big Tech sites support Shamir's Secret Splitting for account deletion (or offer real customer service).

This aspect of IT is the most highly neglected, aside from workers' rights and competitive pay.

I just hope they're not going to lionize Sam. That's the last thing we need. He pulled a classic sociopath-style manipulation to retain his position in the face of legitimate concerns about his abuse of power in the company.