JustTesting

Even for that, 4 legs like the robot dogs is easier/more stable. Plus purpose built robots that don't need to move are generally cheaper and make more sense, like a dishwasher.

and ten 500 bucks purpose built robots are cheaper than one 20-50k humanoid robot that does tasks slowly and needs a human remote operator for most of them

and 'revved up'

Oh my teeth hurt
Oh my tee-eeth hurt
It's got to be my teeth hurt

• Led Zeppelin

Denmark and Norway. Not sure what he wants with the Netherlands, though.

Uhm, should probably mention that MMT is a relatively fringe theory not supported by most mainstream economists. Saying "there's nothing controversial here" seems more than a bit disingenous…

In a way, LLMs have already taken my job as a software engineer. It's not that they can do my job better than me. But they suck all the joy out of the field, they expose the almost religious culture around efficiency and velocity in the field (no, i don't want to be 5% faster to make the boss richer and feel miserable doing it) and how little my peers care about craft and quality. Also why do those fucks have to lap up every new technofacist oligarchy thing with such enthusiasm, it pisses me off.

so it's not that it does my job, but that it showed me how much i disdain this field now.

I'm thinking of switching to something (cnc) machining/cad related, both skills i taught myself and love , but i don't know what kind of position could be suitable given my dev knowledge and lack of formal training. Plus i wouldn't want to do the operator kind of work where all you do is put stock in the cnc machine and execute someone elses CAM, that seems too close to using LLMs in spirit. I do want and like creative work and tinkering.

[edit]

and I'm lucky enough to work for a university, so good work life balance, job security, pension, mostly meaningful work. Ironically enough in the AI field… But that makes considering to switch even harder. I could easily and comfortably coast along and feel discontent for many years to come.

From an old XKCD What-If, which put it at 2.15 gigatons ships vs 2 gigatons fish. But that uses quite old numbers.

Looking at up to date data from the UN there's 2.4 gigatons of ships. Note that this is dead-weight tonnage, so fully loaded. Empty is probably more like ~0.5 gigatons, so it'd depend on how fully loaded the ships are.

And a quick search turns up this paper which references several estimates for fish biomass form other papers, which would put fish biomass somewhere between 0.4 and 4.9 gigatons depending on estimate.

So I put it too strongly saying "more", it'd be more accurate to say fish biomass and ship mass is within the same order of magnitude. Also note that it's only fish, not like plankton, shrimp, etc.

There's more ships in the ocean by weight than there's fish.

[edit]

See my other comment below, probably more accurate to say the total weight of all ships is around the same as the total weight of all ocean fish.

That's true of most of the tech bros, though. They're all losers that haven't built anything themselves and that have been successful despite themselves, not because of themselves, just because they have money and fail upwards

fzf is where it's at

Either the one from the Robot and Monk series (psalm for the wild built by Becky Chambers) or the Culture series.

But only for good things. That rare medical condition, complication during surgery, traffic accident etc, nah, won't happen to me.