I suspect more computer users in total can use the terminal today than then

More in number, or as a percentage of people who use computers?

I’d believe the first one, but not the second. Even if you didn’t count the many people who only use completely closed systems like iOS, Chromebook, or the ordering kiosk at McDonalds in the denominator.

Only because more exist. As a % of total, I highly doubt that.

Yeah in my experience Claude is significantly better at writing go than other languages I’ve tried (Python, typescript)

Same goes for humans. There are some wild exceptions, but most Go projects look like they were written by the same person.

Fairly regularly an 80-something will end up driving down the wrong carriageway of a motorway or dual carriageway. Fairly regularly this results in deaths.

Revolting AI slop writing style

Why not just use Ok/Error which is an accepted idiom and shorter than Success/Failure?

I see this so often in new languages, making poor choices seemingly only to distinguish themselves from existing languages

Do you mean “bullish”?

Bull and bear markets. Bull’s horns are pointing up (expecting growth, optimistic), bear’s claw is pointing down (expecting recession, pessimistic). Yeah, it’s stupid.

So they indeed meant "bullish"? That's what "bullish" means.

That would be the more general/traditional way of saying it, but in modern investment circles the focus seems to have turned towards the actual people being "bulls/bears" and not just the attitudes of the market. A person is a bull or a bear, as opposed to a person being either bullish or bearish.

So in this construction, a "bull case" is a "case that a bull (the person) can make".

"a bull case" gets lots of google results, so it seems to be a commonly used construction amongst analysts. Basically it means "The case that OpenClaw will develop as a bull".

"bullish" seems more common in tech circles ("I'm bullish on this") but it's also used elsewhere.

It's probably what he meant but it's more accurate this way.

"Bullish" means optimistic or even aggressively optimistic. It's typically used in the context of markets.

Sane is an adjective, 'X but Y Noun' expects Y to be an adjective if X is also such. Sane/Bull Case-> Sane/Bullish Case

Right, so they probably meant bullish

At the very least it did result in plenty of services that previously didn't allow one to delete accounts to add that option. For other cases writing a strongly worded email did the trick, unfortunate that Nikola did not have as much success with it.

Somewhat, but not entirely. For smaller players it's a hassle/PITA but it does enforce some checks and balances on the larger players.

thanks for the insight, keyboard warrior

only because it isnt enforced.

if fines were levied and actually collected, itd be a pretty robust regulation for privacy. theres other issues with it, but nothing that requires gdpr to be wiped out -- just modified (and clarified) a bit.

> I'm jealous of my kids since they are so much better off in every way

Really? It’s interesting how much I see this take online. I never see people saying this IRL.

I disagree with the above take. I feel bad that my kids have to grow up in the world of today rather than the world of the 90s.

That's because you're listening to your hormones not reality.

> Barely any conflict

I feel like you might not be paying much attention.

The last century was characterized by two mega wars that killed tens of millions and social changes / revolutions that killed tens of millions as well. This century is off to an AMAZING start. Perhaps unprecedentedly good in world history.

And of course before this century, resource scarcity, lack of modern medicine, etc meant a grueling life of farmwork, living in a hovel, and being sent off to random wars. Now people complain because they can't get a 1500 sq ft home and garden. Come on guys be real.

Not to mention brutal state violence being commonplace , punishments being swift yet often unjust, etc. of course even previous conflicts used to show a brazen disregard for life. Thirty years, 100 years of war, etc

This is true but being able to afford a home, close to where you can find work and develop your social status further, is a pretty important part of life so not particularly surprising kids are miffed about that.

We haven't even got to the same point in the last century where the big war happened, and so far it looks like when we do get to that part of the century, we'll be doing the same thing.

Having medicine is good though. I don't think anyone's arguing that. "Things are worse" doesn't mean "everything is worse"

Not sure how the world wars would have worked had the participating nations been nuclear capable. This invention is quite significant.

It is very hard to hear the good news happening “somewhere” when you see the bad news happening in your backyard.

I’m optimistic too, but I can’t help wonder if the post scarcity world, like the future, won’t be evenly distributed.

Is this satire?

We’re quickly entering a new era of energy abundance, without needing to constantly dig up, process, and cart around enormous amounts of oil. And solar has recently gotten cheap enough that people in poorer countries around the world are deploying huge amounts of it. That’s pretty amazing!

What does this have to do with my question?

You asked if it's satire, I gave you a reason it might not be.

No not at all. The world is way better off today than at any time in the past. This is objectively true and we can all feel it everyday we don't die of dysentery, sepsis, etc.

how many dysenteries make a nuclear explosion?

Can you put that in terms I can understand? How many measles outbreaks per vaccine refusals is that?

Exactly. How many of one bad thing reduced compensates for a different bad thing increased? They say it's better now because we have fast access to information. But we don't have house stability. How many seconds of latency to information equals owning a home?

2100: "You're gonna have dictatorships and you're gonna love it?"

Yup that's the thing: it's not only people who lived that era who do wish they could live in it today.

I never wanted to live in the post-WW II late 40s/50s: maybe the sixties though. For honestly the late 40s and 50s looked incredibly dull. Just dull: movies were dull, acting was dumb, music was mostly pathetic save for a few exceptions.

The boomers really lived the absolute dullest, naive, era and nobody fantasizes on it.

There's never been a teenager from the 80s or 90s saying: "Oh wow, I so wish I lived in the 50s". That's not a thing.

And yet I see many young persons asking me, today, about the 80s and 90s. They like some of the music (sure, some were cheesy but it wasn't the uber dull pathetic stuff from the 50s: not to mention the incredible poor recordings unless you were as successful as Elvis Presley) and they definitely enjoy some of the epic movies. And the cars: many twenty-agers do love cars from the 80s and 90s.

They understand it was pretty much today's world, but less soul-sucking.

There was '50s nostalgia in the '80s, though: Happy Days and Back To The Future.

There was some interesting counterculture in the '40s and '50s, but how could there not be when the dominant culture was so conformist and bland. You have to dig at least a little for that stuff today, because those countercultures didn't really become legible until the '60s, when they were already changing into something less interesting.

I'd be curious to see the 20's since it seems like that was it's own like big breakout time culturally.

I'm really fascinated by the 1890s, myself. Would have been horrible to live in for medical reasons, but there was an amazing counterculture and avant-garde that was just amazingly cool and weird.

Yeah I think part of the limitations of these conversations is the constraints on how we look at time. The arbitrary boomers/gen x/millennial categorisation. When what seems to make more sense is big cultural societal changes. Which would fit into thinking of the history arc as 1920s > mid-1960s/1970s > 2000s

This should surprise nobody. Do you really think that the intelligence agencies of the US etc would allow mainstream E2E encryption? Please stop being so naive