And yet, regular porn is highly monetizable, which was the actual question.

Surprisingly no; it's pretty much a money sink where everybody goes bankrupt after a couple of years. It's why it's attractive to money launderers.

I'm not sure that's true for onlyfans, which seems to have been highly profitable until the sudden death of its founder.

Excellent point: I'm talking about pornography 1.0, as it were.

1.0 should be attributed to pornography _before_ online distribution, and I suspect that was pretty profitable

Isn't 1.0 before _photography_ rather?

Drawings then?

Even more insane than assuming the trend will continue is assuming it will not continue. We don't know for sure (especially not by pure reason), but the weight of probability sure seems to lean one direction.

If Iran was having great success with their attacks, they wouldn't therefore tail off the intensity if they could help it. They would just start scoring more hits with the same, presumably maximum, rate of fire.

I think the obvious answer is the correct one here, that Iran's launch capacity has been degraded. That's not to say it will ever go to zero, so a lot of your other points still have some merit.

That assumes they want to escalate. So far at least their official statements have been clear about tit-for-tat.

It could also backfire spectacularly. If a bunch of civilians suddenly get killed or other war crimes committed unilaterally by them (such as targeting energy infrastructure) their adversaries could gain political support for the current effort. Whereas gradually forcing all interceptors to be expended is a massively expensive slow bleed and gives the opponent little to nothing to spin in their favor.

> f Iran was having great success with their attacks, they wouldn't therefore tail off the intensity if they could help it.

They would for pragmatical reasons - they do not want to spend more ammunition then necessary. They very clearly do eye for eye thing - when something is attacked inside their territory, they attack similar thing outside.

They are not running the "operation epic fury to prove we are manly men" thing. They are running the "operation regime survives in a long term" thing.

I think that what makes it not WWI is that not even trenches really save you from precision munitions.

By "apps" this author apparently means "PyPi packages". This is a bafflingly myopic perspective in a world of myopic perspectives. Do we really expect people vibecoding "apps" to put anything on PyPi as a result? They're consumers of packagers, not creators.

I don't blame people for responding to the title instead of the article, because the article itself doesn't bother to answer its own question.

Did you read the article? The author means software in general, not just user-facing apps.

Yes, I did, just to make sure it was as silly as I thought at first glance.

You do realize that "The author means software in general" is already a concession that they don't actually address the question in the title, right?

A better data set would have been the BigQuery Github stats.

> ChatGPT can guide you through any scenario in seconds for free?

Does this actually work? I'm just thinking of the people who refuse to learn from an in-person demonstration, much less a written description. But maybe enough of that level of incompetence is filtered out by the time you're doing interesting things with spreadsheets...

(Not that I'm opposed to people mass-abandoning Microsoft, just trying to be realistic about my hopes.)

This is binary thinking that has no place in predicting the real world. In practice, the specific person violating your constitutional rights makes a big difference in how badly your rights are violated.

Still doing it.

No one said either level of abuse was ok.

Even if he was, a lot of things have been destroyed that will take a lot longer to rebuild. Notably, trust.

This is like saying that people are going to the gym with power armor, so personal trainers should dramatically increase how heavy the weights are for their clients.

If that helps the clients learn to control the power armour, and if they can later get a job as a power armour operator, then I don't see what the problem with that is?

They won't be fit to work as body builders, sure, but presumably that's not what they were going for when they strapped on the power armour.

Same as CS graduates aren't going to enter a work force that writes code by hand, and shouldn't expect to. The job market requires power armour operators, not muscle heads.

Professional programming without AI assistance is a thing of the past. Much like stablehands or squires or farriers.

You can still do it as a hobby though. You know, for fun. If you want to. It's like knitting!

In a world where trainees are sent directly from the gym to the front lines to fight in power armor against power armor-equipped opponents, they probably should.

If that was the world you lived in, would you go to the gym to learn it?

The question is, what are you trying to learn? There are still going to be problems "power armor" can't solve, like what to move where.

If you want to build strength, the gym is the right place to go. If you want to move large, heavy objects, you get a truck (or power armor, I guess).

Ideally, the people operating the large powerful vehicle are in fact trained in how to use it safely, because trucks (and power armor, and LLMs) can do a lot of damage if used incorrectly

Or that people are doing their driving tests using FSD

The key missing step is where the traveler exercises critical thinking and checks the advice they get. Some people seem to turn that off for LLMs.

It's because we spent that last 50 years training people that computers are algorithmic, cold, and don't make human mistakes. Your calculator can't tell you the meaning of life, but it will never get 2 + 2 wrong.

Well, now the calculator can tell you a meaning of life, but it'll get 2 + 2 wrong 10% of the time.