I like to explain my opposition to vibe coding by replacing the phrase "write code for you" to "fuck your wife for you". You could make all the same arguments that the AI could do a better a job, its never impotent, it frees you from being pressured to do it when you might be tired or not in the mood etc. But thats not the point and most people would still be opposed to sort of, err, "vibe vibrating".

I feel the same way about coding, its a source of pride for me and when I hear people say I should resign myself to being an "ideas guy" while chatgpt actually creates things I find the very concept to be distasteful regardless of whether or not it can outperform me.

Thats why they gave the measurement in watts (which is power) and not joules (which is energy). The answer is that even if the fist and the bullet transfer equivalent amounts of energy the bullet has significantly higher instantaneous power because the energy is transferred over a shorter period of time.

There's a limit to how many photos you can take with somebody else's satellite. Even if the russkies are complying with every Iranian request, that would at least serve to deny russia the ability to use their own surveillance resources to their fullest potential.

Don't satellites have very limited abilities to change their orbits? A request for Iran would be for Russia to photograph something when the Russian satellite is in the area anyway. Unless Russia happened to want to concentrate on something else in that area this shouldn't impede their own surveillance.

Also, I'd expect that everything Iran wants to see Russia also wants to see.

At this point, China would be interested as well. If Xi decides to get on the despot raiding party bus, he'd like to know how effective Iran's capabilities have been on US assets. At this point, North Korea might be looking south too.

Huh? Satellites follow fixed orbits, they don't get moved around to fly over a specific location. They can take images of everything they pass over.

Not everything at once. The lens needs to be angled.

That reminds me of a particularly humorous episode Star Trek Voyager where the ship's doctor (who is a computer program projecting a hologram of a middle-aged man with an extremely conceited personality) tries to prove that diseases aren't as bad as humans claim they are by modifying his own code to give himself a simulation of a cold. The "cold" is designed to end after a few days like a real cold would but one of of the crewmembers surreptitiously extends the expiration date while he isn't looking, which drives him into a state of panic when he doesn't understand what's happening to him.

>AI diagnosis will be like code generation and go asymptotic to perfection as models improve

uhhhhhhh, I'm pretty behind-the-times on this stuff so I could be the one who's wrong here but I don't believe that has happened????

But anyways that nitpicking aside I agree with you wholeheartedly that reducing the doctor's job to diagnosis (and specifically whatever subset of that can be done by a machine-learning model that doesn't even get to physically interact with the patient) is extremely myopic and probably a bit insulting towards actual doctors.

LOVEINT.

This term was coined at the NSA where roughly 1 case is reported per year and overwhelmingly through self-reporting during polygraph exams.

That's quite different from this situation.

9 pregnant women produce one baby/month on average (assuming no miscarriages or late births,etc).

On paper your CPU can execute at least one instruction per core per cycle but that's on average too, if you actually only have one instruction to run it takes several cycles.

But the context is to throw 9 women at the problem of having no conception and the hope to get a baby within a month.

"See what?" --Gavin

Based on how much zendesk spam there is i doubt it.

>clearly talking about the crazy "raking the forests" Trump rhetoric

Are you sure about that? I've been hearing for at least a decade that the solution to CA's forest fire problem is something along the lines of reducing the amount of potential fuel that is allowed to build up by either allowing smaller fires to run their course without intervention or alternatively aggressively executing controlled burns on a regular schedule.

Not sure how viable that is as a solution but I do know the idea didn't originate with Trump because it predates his entire political career.