Interestingly the pros and streamers have the exact opposite complaint: that they dumb the game down for casuals.

Can't please everyone/anyone.

Running ATC (and limiting flights if necessary) seems like the job of the government to me.

Why put this on the carriers?

The idea that waste must be reduced is killing society, and this mindset must be addressed first before any other safety-critical system can be made reliable again.

People seem to forget Teams is the unloved child of a forced marriage between acquisitions, it was never going to turn out successful.

> error: expected the character ';' at this exact location

The user wonders, "if the parser is smart enough to tell me this, why do I need to add it at all?"

The answer to that question "it's annoying to write the code to handle this correctly" is thoroughly lazy and boring. "My parser generator requires the grammar to be LR(1)" is even lazier. Human language doesn't fit into restrictive definitions of syntax, why should language for machines?

> Because code is still read more than it is written it just doesn't seem correct to introduce ambiguity like this.

That's why meaningful whitespace is better than semicolons. It forces you to write the ambiguous cases as readable code.

Removing redundancy from syntax should be a non-goal, an anti-goal even. The more redundancy there is, the higher the likelihood of making a mistake while writing, but the higher the ability for humans and machines to understand the developer's intent unambiguously.

Having "flagposts" in the code lets people skim code ("I'm only looking at every pub fn") and the parser have a fighting chance of recovering ("found a parse error inside of a function def, consume everything until the first unmatched } which would correspond to the fn body start and mark the whole body as having failed parsing, let the rest of the compiler run"). Semicolons allow for that kind of recovery. And the same logic that you would use for automatic semicolon insertion can be used to tell the user where they forgot a semicolon. That way you get the ergonomics of writting code in a slightly less principled way while still being able to read principled code after you're done.

    if object.method()
    || other_object.field.condition()
    || (foo > bar && baz < qux)

Like no one characterizes it like that, but this is the same business where you can tell a story about hiring a bunch of college friends to pretend to be your employees so a client comes to your "office" and thinks you're a legitimate business. And instead of looking in horror at how casually you'll lie to get business it's seen as scrappy and whimsical.

They're concerned about regulation, as always.

Note that this election has no impact over the current congress. Senators and Reps won't be seated until January.

I think it's fine to have an llm write a first or second draft of something, then go through and reword most of it to be in your own voice.

Quite frankly, while having an LLM draft and rewriting it would be okay, I do not believe it is reasonable to expect that to ever happen. It will be either like high school paper plagarism (Just change around some of the sentences and rephrase it bro), or it will simply not even get that much. It is unreasonable with what we know about human psychology to expect that "Human-Rewrites of LLM drafts", at the level that the human contributes something, are maintainable and scalable; Most people psychologically can't put in that effort.

It might give efficiency gains for the writer, but the reader has to read the slop and try to guess at what it was intending to communicate and weed out "hallucinations". That's a big loss of efficiency for the reader.

With LLMs this is less clear, you don’t get the old school artifacts, instead you get hallucinations, and very subtle errors that completely alter the meaning while leaving the sentence intact enough that your reader might not know this is a machine translation error.

and it will also "clean up" the text to the point where important nuances and tangents get removed/transformed into some perfect literature where it loses its meaning and/or significance

The purpose of written language is to express your thoughts or ideas to others. If you're synthesizing text and then refining it you're not engaging in that practice.

Maybe the poster is running a local LLM.. you’d think that a SOTA model would have surmised that an overnight MacOS upgrade can only be a minor version.

Plus, when someone wrote the documentation, I can ask the author about details and they'll probably know since they had enough domain expertise and knowledge of the code to explain anything that might be missing. I can't trust you to know anything about the code you had an AI generate and then had an AI write documentation for.

Then there's the accuracy issue. Any documentation can always be inaccurate and it can obviously get outdated with time, but at least with human-authored documentation, I can be confident that the content at some point matched a person's best understanding of the topic. With AI, no understanding is involved; it's just probabilistically generated text, we've all hopefully seen LLMs generate plausible-sounding but completely wrong text enough to somewhat doubt their output.

The choice is not usually “have humans write amazing top notch documentation, or use an LLM”.

The choice is usually “have sparse, incomplete, out-of-date documentation… or use an LLM”.

I have done a lot of technical writing in my career, and documenting things is exactly where you run into the worst design problems before they go live.

The solution to this form of elitism was not to make everyone speak RP, but to encourage non-RP accents, which is more common in the modern BBC.

Your comment seems elitist by encouraging the use of artifice to fit better into an elitist world, rather than breaking down elitism.

For example, you chose to read my response and attack the vocabulary as if that was the point I was trying to make. This is a misunderstanding. I am purposefully reusing the word choice of the comment I'm replying to.

I was trying to very concisely point out that if an LLM is generating your writing it is not your words or your thoughts that you're trying to communicate.

Apply this argument to code, to art, to law, to medicine.

It fails spectacularly.

Blaming the tool for the failure of the person is how you get outrageous arguments that photography cant be art, that use of photoshop makes it not art...

Do you blame the hammer or the nail gun when the house falls down, or is it the fault of the person who built it?

If you dont know what you're doing, it isnt the tools fault.

Presenting synthesized words as original thought isn't using a tool, it's laziness at best.

Lawyers thoughtfully write laws that other lawyers understand. I’m not sure why that’s confusing.