This suggests a strong need for AI powered code security review and patching as a compliment to Agentic coding platforms. Ideally, in parallel to your coding, it could scan your GitHub and output specific tasks for the Agentic AI to perform for you.
Let’s hope that a tiny portion of the $200M goes towards documentation. If they spent $5k on professional writers they could get something useful. For $50k something great. And for $500k they could have an entire suite of highly produced explainer videos with great post production.
$5k won’t even get you native English language writers, $50k might get you one. One decent writer…for 6 months. Y’all really don’t know the value of skilled non software engineer professionals do you?
Why not just throw AI at it? Seems to be the best use case. So get a startup to fix this startup…so on and so forth…
Citation: professional writer with technical writing experience (also out of work)
My mom was a writer all her life. The last 5 years she's done more and more editing. After LLMs kicked off, and I mean to the month of them starting to hit headlines her work plummeted, then spiked with tons of garbage, and is now levelling off with her usual workflow.
For me, that was a strong signal that everyone gave it a go, found it too difficult to generate quality stuff, and reverted.
If you are protected from facing competition, then you don’t need to actually compete. Therefore, you don’t develop the competitive advantages. You remain at a competitive disadvantage, but it doesn’t matter since you don’t actually have to face the competition… until someday when the protection is removed and you are left to face the more advantaged competition.
> If you are protected from facing competition, then you don’t need to actually compete. Therefore, you don’t develop the competitive advantages. You remain at a competitive disadvantage, but it doesn’t matter since you don’t actually have to face the competition… until someday when the protection is removed and you are left to face the more advantaged competition.
However, it's not uncommon for a company or industry to fail to develop a competitive advantage, and then go bankrupt and disappear.
Without the Jones Act, it's quite possible that the US shipbuilding industry may have ended up even more moribund than it is now, decades ago.
It is already moribund to the point of uselessness, yet it is still imposing enormous economic costs on the entire country. If it's goal was to maintain the ability of the US to build and staff ships, then it has utterly and completely failed, and yet it's costs remain. I have never heard a compelling argument why we should keep it.
Without it, we probably wouldn't have a thriving US shipbuilding industry, but we would have significantly (probably orders of magnitude more) intra-state shipping, which would require more ships that would most likely come from close allies which would boost _their_ shipping industry.
For strategic purposes, obviously having our own shipping industry would be better, but that's apparently not on the table. I'll take, as a close second best option, an improved shipbuilding industry of our allies, with a heaping side helping of massive economic benefit.
At the very list ships built in Italy, (NATO partner), Japan, South Korea (close allies with a ship building industry) should be allowed. Probably we should allow countries like Kenya, Vietnam, Chile (random non-nato countries that don't have ship building but could and seem like places that we want to encourage to become closer to us).
The argument I provided in the message starting this subthread that you answered, was to repeal the Jones Act COMBINED with enacting other subsidies and investment to revitalize US domestic shipbuilding and the maritime sector. Merely repealing the Jones Act without any of the other measures would indeed lead to a quick collapse of what little is left of the US civilian maritime sector.
(Nuclear option: US Navy ensures Freedom of the Seas only for US flagged vessels. Your Liberia-flagged ship gets attacked by pirates, or even some state actor? Ask the Liberian navy to come to your help. And no, this isn't really a serious suggestion that would be in the US interest.)
Ok. I agree with that. And your original comments.
Guess this thread overall had devolved into 'just repeal' and let the 'free market' toughen up the Americans that have gotten weak. Free market will sort it out.
Subsidies and Investments are correct, but deemed 'bad' by the people wanting to cut government.
> If you are protected from facing competition, then you don’t need to actually compete.
You mean like all the (e.g.) garment and other factories competed against foreign manufacturers… and the companies decided to close up shop and move overseas?
The main garments that are still made in the US are those for the military due to domestic production regulations in procurement rules.
Clothing seems different: the amount of labor needed to make a single low-value item is very high. While fabric production is quite automated, assembly into clothing is done by low-paid skilled people using equipment that is not substantially different from what someone might use at home to make clothing. The US, understandably, can’t really compete, and this doesn’t seem to bad for the US. I expect that the US can make fabric just fine, and we produce plenty of cotton.
Steel making and ship building are done with heavy machinery, at least to a sufficient extent that I would expect wages to matter less.
Sure, but 'competition' by itself doesn't mean those industries would win and stay in the US. Look at all the industries where there was competition and left the US.
There are industries the US should support for defense, you don't want to be buying your weapons from your enemies. See the drive to bring Chips back to the US.
Allowing wonton outsourcing is finally being seen as maybe not a forgone good.
I would imagine that the Chinese are good at wonton, though wanton outsourcing of wontons may not be in the best interests of local "pork" spending. Maybe if we had more details on how that whole Bronze Age Collapse went down we might have better ideas of what to avoid, but learning from history isn't very popular.
Fresh wontons travel poorly, and excellent fresh wantons are available at reasonable prices, locally made, even in high cost of living areas like the Bay Area.
When the Industrial Age collapses, and no computers work anymore, we should be sure to write down the reasons on something more durable,,,, this time around.
Client dictates what ads are shown. Fb knows what ads are shown to who. Fb now can deduce what topics people are talking about. Technically convo info has leaked. If someone is getting served ads for Trump, they probably like Trump. If they are getting ads for Biden they probably like Biden. Etc…..
Yes, so that would violate the end to end principle. If the client downloaded all of the possible ads and the selection was totally local, and interaction with any of them was a user choice I think that could still be fairly described as E2E though. Or ads were fetched by private information retrieval.
