And now we're much less reliant on oil, and more countries produce it and have reserves. The flip side is the economy and financial system already felt creaky anyway (tariffs, inflation, job market, government shutdowns, private credit, AI, etc.), so net net things may be just as bad or worse.
SPY is up at least as much as your Claude bot since the Nov 25 2024 start date, but you show it down 3%. If AI is both doing the trading and reporting the results, you...may have a problem.
Investors aren't on the hook for the bad behavior of companies they invest in. Quite the opposite: Defrauding investors (and acquirers, and creditors) is commonly the thing that lands people like Elizabeth Holmes in prison.
Ycombinator may have financially benefited from the scam operations since the company subsequently raised funds.
Considering they do due diligence before investment and are experts in IT and legal, how could they not know what is the business model when it was the unique selling point ?
Yeah, yeah... of course, of course... like telehealth companies prescribing GLP-1 Ozempic/Wegovy where there is one doctor for 10000 patients. Totally sounds legit.
You are aware that ty has only recently entered beta status?
Ruff isn’t stable yet either and has evolved into the de facto standard for new projects. It has more than double the amount of rules than Pylint does. Also downloaded more than 3 times as often as Pylint in the past month.
Pylint has some advantages, sure, but Ruffs adoption speaks for itself. Pylint is 25 years old. You’d hope they do some things better.
Saying that uv is their only winner is a hilarious take.
> I would stare longingly into the void, wondering if I can ever work another python project after having experienced uv, ruff, and ty.
You think you're disagreeing with me, but you're agreeing. To wit: The original post is silly, because ty is beta quality and Ruff isn't stable yet either. Your words.
These are just tools, Pylint included. Use them, don't use then, make them your whole personality to the point that you feel compelled to defend them when someone on the Internet points out their flaws. Whatever churns your butter.
>Saying that uv is their only winner is a hilarious take.
na this news is good enough reason to move from Ruff back to black and stay the course, I won't use anything else from Astral. I will use uv but only until pip 2/++ gets its shit together and catches up and hopefully then as a community we should jump back on board and keep using pip even if it's not as good, it's free in the freedom sense.
Probably the handful of dashes (not even em dashes!) and the sentences "It was never just about the candy. It was about being together." Superficially these look like the AI markers people are always calling out, but only superficially.
I didn't notice the dashes, and I thought that construction was actually fine. I first noticed whatever I'm noticing at the passage:
> It was never just about the candy. It was about being together.
And then, a subsequent paragraph ends:
> But the ritual remained.
I'll allow "Grandpa’s chocolate was something else entirely. It was sacred." because (while it fits the pattern) it actually works; but we see the same pattern again later:
> It’s sweet. It’s bitter. It’s ours.
I'll give the benefit of the doubt for the overall structure of the narrative, too, because maybe the author's picked up (or, heck, perhaps pioneered) the traditional Facebook Anecdote Genre. I'll even give a pass for the style, because it resembles the writing style of https://www.csmonitor.com/1996/0502/050296.home.home.1.html – if somewhat less skilful. But those parts I've identified as least skilful are also those parts I've identified as most AI-like.
Now look at when Nancy Intrator contributed to the Christian Science Monitor: 1994–1997. Sure, it's plausible that she's contributing again after a long haitus (and the facts of the story back this up)… but we've got a lot of "plausible"s adding up.
You mentioned the en-dashes (which I don't treat as an AI indicator; I use them myself, even!). Nancy's 90s writing did use dashes, but much less frequently: https://www.csmonitor.com/1994/1228/28172.html has 4 dashes in a much longer piece (all spaced ASCII, but we can chalk that difference up to software), whereas TFA has 11! (https://www.csmonitor.com/1995/0329/29161.html has no dashes at all, but it's a slightly different genre of anecdote, so I'll ignore that as an outlier.)
If I had to guess, I would say that there was a shorter draft written by the real Nancy Intrator (or someone pretending to be her, but probably the real Nancy), which was then expanded by a generative AI system. The additional research I've done for this comment has not changed my guess.
Which in itself wouldn't be too bad, if mobile platforms had proper backup facilities that allowed individuals and enterprises to easily get all their devices to the exact backed up state they were before being wiped. But that seems to be unwanted by Apple and Google...
This is well known in cybersecurity circles. I mentioned here[1] a couple years back that I know CISOs who've had to clean up big messes because their predecessor was on the Cyberstarts payroll, but on the bright side I also know a couple of those predecessors who were fired for it.
Cyberstarts is the most blatant offender, but to be fair, VC has turned into the next rung on the career ladder for CIOs/CISOs, whose role is otherwise generally terminal (unlike e.g. COO or CMO). So a lot of deals get done now just on giving CISOs a path into VC. It's more subtle than Gili's way, and just as effective.
About 20 years ago I quite liked the idea of becoming a CISO - the CIO I worked for at the time talked me out of it - saying that the role would largely involve being ignored then, when something inevitably did go wrong, you'd get sacked.
The board of a Fortune 1000 financial services company just fired the CISO and Deputy CISO because they did too good a job cataloging all of the risk in their infrastructure. Now that it's documented and defensibly quantified, the company is somewhat obliged to do something about it, and the board was not thrilled.
People point to the basic structure of "It's not X, it's Y" as the hallmark of AI, but I find it's more the incongruity between X and Y, especially when figures of speech (invariably strained) are involved[1]. That first quote reads like a real interaction that's been tightened up for print, but the second, the 'farm equipment' <> 'life-support system', does smell like AI, even though the article implies it's from an in-person conversation.
1. These are all from a single 850-word op-ed I saw the other day: "Presidents do not usually lose power because of a single speech. They lose power when a speech reveals something structural." "But the most important part of the speech was not the applause lines. It was the compression." "Markets can rise. But voters do not live inside charts. They live inside grocery stores and mortgage payments." "The issue is not whether a statistic was stretched. The issue is that the presidency becomes reactive instead of agenda-setting." "That friction is not theoretical — it is baked into the constitutional design." "Trump’s address was not a pivot to persuasion — it was a doubling down on confrontation as strategy." "They are not just another campaign cycle. They are leverage."
Happens all the time and doesn't mean anyone got screwed. A couple years ago Lacework sold to Fortinet for around $200m. That sounds like a nice exit for everyone, right? But this was after they'd raised $1.8b at a valuation north of $8b, which, ouch. When founders and employees fail this completely, yeah, their equity is going to zero.
Of course there are other cases where people do get genuinely screwed. My point is only that the cash value of an exit, even when it's a big number like $350m, doesn't tell you much.
reply