Microsoft is currently hiring engineers to rewrite their entire codebase in Rust via vibecoding. Something to the tune of a million lines of code per developer per month.
I think this limitation goes away as long as your code is modular.
If the Ai has to read the entire code base each time, sure but if everything is designed well then it only needs to deal with a limited set of code each time and it excels at that.
The West hasn't stopped interfering in Iran though. They did massive terrorist attacks there just a year ago. Israel would openly salivate at the prospect of destroying Iranian agriculture and water supply.
China is an interesting counterfactual. Circa 2010 when Xi came to power, the CPC also essentially destroyed the CIA's footprint in the country, something that was not widely reported in the West. And PRC has done very well since...
> Circa 2010 when Xi came to power, the CPC also essentially destroyed the CIA's footprint in the country, something that was not widely reported in the West. And PRC has done very well since...
The PRC was doing just as fine before they executed all the CIA's agents. I don't see any relation. There's never been any hint from either the US or China that those agents were doing anything other than passive intelligence collection, as opposed to actively interfering in domestic Chinese politics. And in any event, the scope of historical CIA operations has always been overblown. In every case I'm aware of, the CIA leveraged a tipping point already well underway to nudge things one way or another. Developing countries are often already highly unstable and prone to regular disruptive power shifts; it's a major cause of their poverty and inability to fully develop. And in many of the outright coups the CIA has been implicated, the extent of the CIA's involvement was simply talking to and making promises to various power players already poised to make a power grab, Chile being a prime example--the Chilean Senate was the architect of the coup, and the CIA merely offered safe harbor to nudge Pinochet, who was waffling because he wasn't convinced it would succeed. The exceptions were during the middle of the Cold War, ancient history in modern foreign affairs.
The KGB/FSB has always been lauded for opportunistically taking advantage of preexisting situations with small but smart manipulations, but that's just how intelligence agencies have always worked in general. When your interventions are too direct and obvious, which they always will be if you're creating a crisis from scratch, you risk unifying the country, Iran being a prime example.
> There's never been any hint from either the US or China that those agents were doing anything other than passive intelligence collection, as opposed to actively interfering in domestic Chinese politics. And in any event, the scope of historical CIA operations has always been overblown. In every case I'm aware of, the CIA leveraged a tipping point already well underway to nudge things one way or another.
Beyond being self-contradictory (CIA is passive but also they interfere on key issues) this is just false. The West has spent a lot of (covert) resources undermining China in the past decade in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Taiwan, trade and tech wars, COVID, and so on. All attempts which have failed dramatically, perhaps partly due to the lack of IC penetration into society and government.
> Beyond being self-contradictory (CIA is passive but also they interfere on key issues) this is just false
I said the CIA's intelligence network in China which was dismembered was passive, the same way China's network in the US is passive, not that the CIA is passive everywhere else. But maybe you wouldn't describe either as passive, which is fair, but I don't think that definition fits with how most people conceive of what active political manipulation looks like. Note also I didn't mean to imply that promoting a coup by offering safe harbor is passive in the same sense; I would definitely categorize that as direct domestic political disruption, just not of the kind Hollywood or conspiracy theories depict, which is what people assume when CIA involvement is implicated.
And I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding Hong Kong, Xinjiang, or Taiwan. Is public criticism interfering in domestic politics? Sanctions arguably are, which the US uses regularly around the world, but in the context of China, it's always about money and trade wars and international disputes. The US is active militarily in Taiwan in terms of training and arms supplies, but this is largely at Taiwan's insistence, and the US does much less than Taiwan wants. And none of this involves direct CIA involvement beyond the intelligence collection and sharing networks, both with and without the local government's approval.
I'm curious if you have specific examples. I know the US has proposed sanctions for China's policies in Xinjiang, but I don't remember anything actually coming of it. If I'm misremembering, that's fair, and I understand why China would consider actual sanctions domestic political interference, but note that this is also a cultural divide between Chinese and Western political philosophies--the latter is much more moralistic, and interventions against perceived human rights abuses aren't necessarily considered to violate the principle of state sovereignty.
Iran has been openly funding and training actual terrorist organizations, as recognized by many countries. If fighting that is terrorism to you, then I’m not sure what you’re doing here on the enemy’s social media…
"Ellison was married to Barbara Boothe from 1983 to 1986.[92] Boothe was a former receptionist at Oracle (RSI at the time).[93] They had two children, David and Megan, who were (as of 2024) film producers at Skydance Media and Annapurna Pictures, respectively"
So he bought studios so his kids could make movies
He's not talking about other nations, he's talking about the US and saying if you are not a citizen of a nation, its a foreign nation to you and they have no obligation to let you in.
> Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders.
This is obviously a general statement about any nation, comparing the US to its peers.
In the context of the conversation it is clearly an argument that “we don’t have to let you in, we can require whatever we want, including trampling on your rights as an individual”, which is unamerican.
"For nearly 160 years, the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has established the principle that anyone born in the country is a US citizen, with exceptions for children born to diplomats and foreign military forces."
I was actually unaware of this. That does seem to be a wedge to maybe support the issue. I'm not arguing one way or another for or against, just an interesting opening I had not seen before.
It's tricky - the 14th amendment was passed following reconstruction as a way of ensuring that freed slaves couldn't be denied citizenship. Much later, the Wong Kim Ark case argued that it should cover the children of immigrants, and the supreme court agreed. Quite a while after that, the Wong Kim Ark decision was interpreted to include children of non-citizens as well, and _that's_ what's never been tested in court until now.
It should not be tricky. The role of the supreme court is to enforce and interpret the constitution and federal law. What the constitution says in this case is unambiguous. It would very reductive to re-inturpret the 14th amendment after 150 years to mean something other than what it says.
> It would very reductive to re-inturpret the 14th amendment after 150 years to mean something other than what it says.
They did it with the Second Amendment in DC v. Heller. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court decides it means, nothing else, nothing more, nothing less.
You may not like it but OP is absolutely right. Whatever the supreme court rules stands. That’s exactly how the current system works unless laws are passed or the constitution is amended. Your response is childish and you should be embarrassed.
I don't think they're disagreeing with me, just pointing out that the meaning of the Constitution is subject to a majority vote, which only further undermines the premise that any such thing as an unambiguous (much less "objective") interpretation exists because not even the entire Court always agrees with itself.
Not disagreeing at all, just pointing out how extreme they would have to be to actually undo the 14th Amendment. Modern laws are highly complex and often genuinely challenging to read and understand. The Constitution is very readable even for lay people. Re-inturpreting it to revoke rights requires a willfull misunderstanding by justices.
It would be extreme, but that doesn't make it unlikely. Roe v. Wade was settled law for nearly 50 years, then it was simply nullified.
And the thing is, the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution based on what lay people would think, but based on what a simple majority of them imagine the ghosts of the Founding Fathers would think if they were summoned by necromancy to adjudicate modern matters on first principles. That's why the canonical interpretation of "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with any modern interpretation of "regulation" that any lay person would understand.
How will this be enforced? Where are your parents papers right now? What about their parents? Seems like an easy way to criminalize and deport literally anyone with zero pretext.
Bingo. Moral grandstanding only works during the boom, not the come down. And despite being as big an idealist as they come, sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do. You can crusade, but you're just making your future self more miserable trying to pretend that you are more important than you think. Not surprising in an era of unbridled narcissism, but hey, that's where we are. People who have nothing to lose fail to understand this, whereas if you have a family, you don't have time for drum circles and bullshit: you've got mouths to feed.
The ceo of every one of those Ai companies drives an expensive car home to a mansion at the end of the workday. They are set. The average person does not and they cannot afford to play the principled stand game. Its not a question of right or wrong for most, its a question of putting food on the table
Its cravenly amoral until your children are hungry. The market doesn't care about your morals. You either have a product people are willing to pay money for or you don't. If you are financially independent to the point it doesn't matter to you then by all means, do what you want. The vast majority of people are not.
I assume they are weathering the storm if they are posting like this and not saying "we're leaving the business". A proper business has a war chest for this exact situation (though I'm unsure of how long this businesses has operated)
I think that's OP's point though, Ai can do it better now.
No searching, no looking. Just drop your question into Ai with your exact data or function and 10 seconds later you have a working solution. Stackoverflow is great but Ai is just better for most people.
Instead of running a google query or searching in Stackoverflow you just need a chatGPT, Claude or your Ai of choice open in a browser. Copy and paste.
