Just dropping by to say how much I passionately hate documentation that uses fib() as an example.

As a lawyer I think this could potentially be litigated as a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Would the question still be about measuring the drop in quality to prove that the product (the software in this case) is in breach of the law?

Well, it would probably need to be part of a physical product and not software alone unless the vendor is dumb and forgot to disclaim the warranty (see https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol16/iss2/6/).

Second, it’s not exactly about whether the change constitutes a drop in quality but whether it renders the product unfit for its ordinary purpose. The argument would essentially be that the change is a deliberately introduced defect.

It’s a little weird but a plausible claim given the right facts.

I wonder how this compares to Technical Pan, which I imagine it was modeled after.

Eh, kind of. Right now I'm hiring for a role where nobody remaining in my applicant pool is qualified (all have only some of the experience I need) but I'm probably still going to hire one of them. Does that "qualify" them? No. It just means I'm probably going to hire despite it.

There’s always treason

That has never worked well in America.

Rather than trying to trip up the LLM I find it’s much easier to ask about something esoteric that the LLM would know but a normal person wouldn’t.

That basically amounts to the same thing. LLMs are pretty good at faking responses to conversational questions.

I sell you a cat for $1B and you sell me a dog for $1B and now we’re both billionaires! Whether the capital markets “want” that or not it’s still silly.

If we’re both willing to pay that in a free market economy, then we both leave the deal happy.

Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. And that can change over time.

Sentiment matters more than fundamental value in the short term.

Long term, on a timescale of a decade or more, it’s different.

Both parties would need the $1B prior to the transaction for it to even potentially be meaningful, and still they just traded a cat for a dog and only paid each other on paper.

That ultimately wouldn't be a big deal if the paper valuation from the trade didn't matter. As it stands, though, both parties could log it as both revenue and expenses, and being public companies their valuation, and debt they can borrow against it, is based in part on revenue numbers. If the number was meaningless who cares, but the numbers aren't meaningless and at such a scale they can impact the entire economy.

> If we’re both willing to pay that in a free market economy

The thing is: you've paid nothing - all you did was trade pets and played an accounting trick to make them seem more valuable than they are.

Is that not fraud?

Yes, it is fraud round tripping is fraud, whether the government is willing to prosecute it or not.

I'm also a fan of "Every B2B SaaS attempts to expand until it it's an ERP."

This has got to be the weirdest litigation strategy I’ve ever seen.