At least someone is asking the right questions.

If that happened, has a crime been committed? I don't think so. Well, maybe tampering with the thermometer might be a crime, but, on the gambling angle, I would say it's not.

The betting contract depended on the Oracle's data for resolution. The Oracle's data was altered. The betting contract wasn't altered, however the social contract was.

If you cheat a casino, you go to jail.

Not my experience. AI takes a lot less time doing tasks than myself. My current issue is that 2 out of 3 they don't produce the code that I want, so I either have to reprompt or do it myself. And the solution is simple: just accept their way; I'm just not there yet.

In any case, on that one time that AI works perfectly, it saves me hours of coding. So the potential is there...

That's a conspiracy theory if I ever heard one.

Yes

That's pretty standard review practice in there by now.

But it was apparently ignored.

It wasn’t ignored, the second commit fixes what the bot suggested

I guess if they are wrong the world economy crashes and burn again, because they wasted all these shiny dollars on infra build out. It's lose lose.

We have. That's why the parent said _there was a time_, implying that this is no longer true.

_begins_? Like, before, they wouldn't get tickets?

Moving violations are issued to the driver, in person, so there hasn't really been a mechanism for issuing them to an operator.

Yes, and there's an example towards the end of the article.

> A/B testing showed github that this might be preferable

A/B testing can’t measure preference, only interaction.

I guarantee you it's not preferable to the majority of github users.

Can you actually show us this research and a/b testing?

Except there was a different comment from someone that actually knew how it came around, and it was an ugly performance workaround.