Senal

By that rationale you world also need to prove that they are misunderstood upstanding citizens.

Because both interpretations are deviations from the stated intent and outcome, why would yours not also need journalistic rigour?

Just because yours is a slightly positive spin doesn't mean its not conjecture against the provided facts.

Politicians are people too, sure.

Doing a bad job of implementing a self serving plan doesn't excuse the self serving plan.

That's some 'boys will be boys' nonsense.

Take brexit and Alexander as example, his intent was to do something shitty for self gain, he's not an idiot no matter how it seems.

There's no chance he believed that ridiculous tagline about the NHS funding and Europe, even if he did, someone at some point would have pointed it out to him.

He did it anyway, that's intent.

Regardless of the outcome, he did something he knew was shitty, for whatever reason he had.

These people might be idiots, but their intent is usually to do something shady, that they are incompetent and do a shitty job of it isn't the point.

Wrt to the America thing, I agree, I'm not saying the government is working with tech companies, im saying their intent usually isn't 'save the children', at that point we absolutely should be hunting for the reasons, because if it isn't the reason they have stated, what are they hiding?

Nobody said autism is bad (in the chain im replying to), but here we are.

Two statements that never happened with two corrections that aren't needed apparently.

5g microchipped psuedo-butter, outstanding.

And i was correcting the misconception that just because someone is neurodivergent doesn't make them immune to being an arsehole.

Neurodivergent people are people, with all that entails.

any examples of real insults ?

It doesn't but a neurodivergent person can absolutely be an arsehole.

Its not a magic label that makes everything "quirky" and "eccentric".

Are you judging the motivation purely based on the effects? Otherwise, how are you working out what goes on inside people’s heads?

A combination of the effects, the prior actions, reactions and consequences of the subject and others in similar categories/contexts (to the extent i actually know/pay attention).

I don't know of another way of performing predictive analysis.

Also that didn't answer the question.

I think given that we all agree that there are voters who think this will protect children makes it crazy to think that politicians must somehow know better. It is well-accepted online that politicians are out-of-touch when it comes to technology, so it’s not like they understand the subject of this article.

I'm genuinely not sure what you are saying here, but i'll go line by line, tell me if I'm reading it incorrectly.

I think given that we all agree that there are voters who think this will protect children makes it crazy to think that politicians must somehow know better.

I don't know what this means, there are voters who genuinely believe this, yes, i think i follow that bit.

I'm not sure what you think is crazy here (i'm not disagreeing, i just don't understand) , do you mean to say the politicians do or don't know better ?

It is well-accepted online that politicians are out-of-touch when it comes to technology, so it’s not like they understand the subject of this article.

This i agree with, i can also anecdotally add first hand experience of the consequences of such lack of understanding.

Not sure how it ties in to the other sentence though.

and before you bring out the “but everyone i know all says the same”, that’s still anecdotal, it’s what anecdotal means.

"We have a and everyone I’ve spoken to that tried the reports "

Again, i'm not doubting your understanding the experience of you or your acquaintances, i'm saying its anecdotal, a vanishingly small sample size and not necessarily indicative of a general position.

It being a real and powerful motivational force means it's one of the more useful covers.

Just because it motivates the voters/customers doesn't mean it's the genuine reason behind a decision.

I cannot think of a single recent "think of the children" based action that was intended to and actually helped the children in a meaningful way.

Can you?

Uh, idk how they got that number. It goes against the observations of literally everyone in the industry,

Scientific study vs anecdotal data, that's what studies are supposed to be, the formalisation and distillation of data into conclusions based on said data.

so maybe it’s not the industry that is biased, but the benchmark they did is incorrect?

Possibly, do you know how that's normally tested ?

Like just several sprints before I’ve saved my team by generating proto contracts taking backend repo as a context, as backend was busy with other higher important things to unblock us. No AI here means we would be blocked full stop for the entire sprint. And when backend did generate the contract, it was almost identical, and the diff in contracts allowed to identify the issue in the entities they send.

Anecdote, from a single person.

I don't doubt that that is your experience, but it's just that, your experience.

and before you bring out the "but everyone i know all says the same", that's still anecdotal, it's what anecdotal means.

My brother in Christ, in big enterprise project chances that you have some familiarity with the code, well, they are non-zero, but also not that high.

I mean, sure ? i'm not sure how that is relevant though.

As i said, the one study i've seen is somewhat flimsy....

Do you have literally any other study to backup any claims to the contrary?

My original comment was in response to :

It’s stupid to resist agentic AIs when they boost productivity by a lot.

That might be true, but for it to be applicable the productivity boost needs to be real, and for public claims to be taken seriously, provably real.

That you, personally, think you are seeing this is great, works for you.

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/07/study-finds-ai-tools-made-open-source-software-developers-19-percent-slower/