I'm not sure if agents are better or worse than humans at refactoring.
When they get it right, it works well - full context covered, full business logic recreated completely.
When they fail, they fail fairly hard. They miss some functions in a grep, or return too many and fail to address one part, and they end up with holes.
I scrutinise the work heavily, and find I rely on gut feel a lot for what's right and wrong.
This is the only POSSIBLE rational argument for this approach. 4x price, on 1/2 the customer base is still 2x revenue with less customers to deal with. They want to keep the Big Corp clients that are happy to pay.
Now if it actually works out like this, only time will tell I suppose?
It will work for some time for Broadcom. They are private equity (PE); jack prices and don't care about the quality. Heard the stories from a previous company taken by PE.
Big business never think of the future. Good example is when two companies merged the brought down the cost of poly. Took a couple years for gravitation to the mean to bring up the base cost. They kept thinking it would stay low form them with being so big.
The Big Business that are staying with VMWare really should be tasking to know the cost of replacement with estimated time frame with a known successor. Yet, MB are blinded by staying with a known working tool. Perform the task on a few servers to reduce cost while investing in the education to do so. Big MBs really don't have a clear idea of investing wealth.
I feel like humanoid robots, that can replace a worker, is genuinely going to be like the weird guaranteed income you get in those idle games. Spend $10) to increase your income by $10/tick. Buy 100 and increase it by $1000/tick! The more you invest the more you make!
Having a core system be entirely dependent on a foreign entity seems silly when there is a very viable alternative (which also saves a lot on licensing). I say VIABLE not equivalent. Linux is a lot rougher, and the change management process will be brutal. Retooling an entire department/etc to use whatever Linux has instead of entra/intune for device management will also be complex/incomplete/a learning curve.
TLDR: any govt would be crazy not to at least trial it, and see if it works.
That's always a possibility, and I'm sure it has happened a lot. I would suspect with the size of liquid it's more likely it was an exploit, but either way I don't think we'll ever know!
There is no gray area when it comes to veganism. Just because there is no word for that diet, does not mean you can just twist the definition of vegan for your convenience.
You could easily just say your a pescatarian who doesn’t eat dairy or eggs, and that would be more correct.
Sorry for not being perfect like you. For ethical reasons, I do not consume dairy or meat (except for fish). The vegan community should be more open to other perspectives, especially when someone is actively making an effort towards reducing harm.
Vegan Puritanism is totally antithetical to our collective goal of reducing animal suffering. Rather than being motivated by the prospect of claiming moral superiority, our goal should be to help the animals.
It's not really a moral issue, it's simply the definition of the word. Using an incorrect term to describe yourself knowing it is incorrect can be perceived as virtue-signaling or claiming your own moral superiority. For example, one could ask "why call yourself a vegan if you eat fish?".
There's no policing body here, but people are rightfully calling the double-standard out here.
Edit: Would also love to hear the ethics of why fish can be eaten when cows/chicken/pigs cannot. Doesn't sound ethically consistent to me at all.
I actually prefer not to call myself a vegan IRL both because of the issue you’re describing and because veganism is (rightfully) associated with having a toxic and intolerant culture. The only reason I said “vegan except fish” in my comment is because the title of the study used the word “vegan” and because the study was talking about veganism in a purely dietary/scientific lens, not an ethical one. I think this was a pretty reasonable thing to do.
If it doesn’t make sense for people to say “vegan except for chicken”, “vegan except for beef”, then why on earth would it make sense to say “vegan except fish”?
Fish aren’t lesser beings, they are living creatures like anything else.
Just stop saying “vegan except fish”. Say you eat plants and fish. That’s all you have to do.
> If it doesn’t make sense for people to say “vegan except for chicken”, “vegan except for beef”, then why on earth would it make sense to say “vegan except fish”?
I don't know why you take offense to someone saying "vegan except for beef" or "vegan except for fish." There is nothing inherently wrong with these statements. It just depends on whether you view veganism as a lifestyle or as a diet, which can vary depending on the context. In the context of a nutrition study, we are obviously talking about the diet, not the lifestyle.
Killing and eating animals is not a perspective vegans will be open to.
You can reduce harm, but you cannot call yourself vegan until you actually eliminate the possibility of eating animals or their products from your life. There is no reason you HAVE to eat fish.
It's not puritanism. You haven't grasped the ethical system if you don't understand that vegans view this as murder. Why should veganism have exceptions when we don't have exceptions for murder, rape, beating children? Most of us view animal exploitation at the same level.
If someone adopts a vegan diet purely for health reasons, are they not a true vegan? They haven’t accepted the moral framework that killing animals is wrong.
Should the study filter out people who eat entirely plant-based for reasons other than ethics. because according to you, that’s not a true vegan diet.
I think you are largely correct that veganism is a lifestyle, not a diet. But in the context in which my comment was made, it was perfectly reasonable for me to say “vegan except for fish,” because the study was analyzing veganism as a diet, not as an ethical lifestyle.
No, veganism is by definition an ethical framework, a term and movement created in the UK in the early 20th century, by the Vegan Society, which still exists, and has a very specific exact definition on their webpage that hasn't changed.
What you are talking about is the Plant Based Diet, which minimizes but doesn't fully exclude animal products, and is not an ethical framework.
You might as well say "I eat Kosher except for pork". It's nonsense.
I assume you mean that the study should not have said “vegan diet” and instead should have said “plant-based diet.” In that case, I agree with you. But don’t direct your anger towards me; direct it towards the authors of the study!
I'm not really angry at you, maybe slightly frustrated at the confusion everyone has about veganism. Appreciate your candor in any case. I'm definitely angry at some other people in this thread through.
People would provide significantly more global benefit for their cause, compared to their individual contribution, by not putting people off their cause wholesale.
This is why in a free/profit driven market you *absolutely* need strong regulation. A companies mandate isn't to make the world a better place. It's to make money. The government's job is there to make the world a better place (generalisation of keep balance, keep people safe, etc).
Australia gets given grief for being a nanny state, but it's what's required.
Gas HAS to be used as a backup for renewables today (or at least in places without good pumped hydro?). Enough batteries to supply an entire grid for a day or two is just out of reach today.
At least in Australia, I'm not sure how the dynamics go with such a geographically diverse grid like Europe.
Yes, certainly, I agree. But, at the same time, we should be electrifying and rapidly deploying storage (both energy and heat) as quickly as possible. "Burn the ships" and commit.
> Solar PV supplied more than 10% of global electricity in the first half of 2026, but generation remains heavily concentrated around midday. Ember says rapidly expanding, cheaper battery storage could shift 34% of new daily solar generation to non-solar hours in 2026, bringing round-the-clock solar closer.
AI is definitely eating jobs as no one would disagree with, I guess the question is more at what point does it go from low, medium, high, or apocalyptic job loss?
When they get it right, it works well - full context covered, full business logic recreated completely.
When they fail, they fail fairly hard. They miss some functions in a grep, or return too many and fail to address one part, and they end up with holes.
I scrutinise the work heavily, and find I rely on gut feel a lot for what's right and wrong.
reply