The more your toolchain (compilers, linters, etc) can statically verify, the better agents will do.
The terser the code, the better agents will do.
The more often similar problems have been solved in open source, the better agents will do. Agents seem particularly good at plumbing together different pieces of software.
Anything that requires a judgement call, as opposed to having one obvious way to do it, will get worse results from an agent.
As the scope of the request grows, agents get worse at it. This can be mitigated somewhat using various techniques ("write a plan", "do step 1 of the plan", etc) but never fully resolved. At some point the task is so big that it's necessary to do large parts by hand.
His base is still with him. Frankly, I can't find a material distinction between the beliefs of his base and the belief that Trump is the physical embodiment of America (and therefore anyone who opposes him in any way is an enemy of America).
However, his base is smaller than it seems like it is. It definitely does not include everyone who voted for him. A substantial fraction of his voters just prioritized other things over the rule of law.
That prioritization was a critical mistake - both because he was never going to deliver on those other things, and because giving up rule of law is catastrophic. It is understandable, though. It's these people who may be starting to break fron Trump.
Wrong. Republicans have been nasty forever (e.g. calling Democratic voters baby-killers who hate America since at least Reagan, redoubling that under Bush, redoubling again under Trump). They still win elections, and Democrats responded for decades by ignoring it.
That is what has led to Trump. What little evidence we have indicates that bullying just works. It's not the only thing that works -- see Obama -- but it does work. Ignoring the bullying doesn't.
What exactly do they have deep regrets about, though? Do they regret voting for someone with his style? Do they regret empowering an obvious corrupt liar? Do they regret supporting someone who focuses on who to blame and hurt, rather than on things that might actually help (albeit in regrettably marginal ways in all three cases)?
Or do they just regret that they were fooled by this guy, specifically? That he's not accomplishing his stated goals, whether or not he is taking his promised actions? If it's this one, then it's only a matter of time before another charlatan does the same thing better.
Usually they regret him not being extreme enough. Being personally harmed to a very high level also works. The keyword is very high level, people are willing to take a lot of pain for someone they think is "jesus".
In legal terms, one would call this a "statement against interest". If a politician says he does not care one bit about the welfare his constituents, it is reasonable for those constituents to take him at his word no matter how untrustworthy he is. It only hurts him if we believe it.
Iranian negotiators probably shouldn't believe him, because it's not against interest in that context. There probably just aren't any on Hacker News.
Hell, when it comes to government, I easily prefer boring to not-boring in an executive all else being equal. Which it wasn't here, but still.
I want the firebrands with big ideas to improve things in the legislature, and steady hands on the tiller in the executive. Unfortunately it seems that my compatriots want firebrands in both places.
Obama is a very unique case. I wouldn't exactly call him a firebrand, but his public persona managed to give the perception of being a steady hand on the tiller who also had big ideas. The only other presidential candidate in my lifetime to give a similar impression was Al Gore, but he leaned more into the "steady hand" thing to his detriment. He also, as you note, had far less charisma than Obama.
I think you would be surprised by how not completely unique Obama was!
The Democrats have had a number of pretty high quality, charismatic candidates, but for some reason they never receive the party backing on the national stage, at least not for the presidency.
The Democrats seem to lean in to almost inheriting nominations. Hillary Clinton, Biden, Kamala, etc.
“The heir apparent”.
Honestly the most unique thing about Obama Was that they broke from “the heir apparent” and ran someone who had risen up from the state level and was merely a high quality congressman for a short period of time.
I mean, I followed the 2020 primary. Basically everyone who thought they had an outside chance seemed to be running there. I liked Buttigeg and Booker then, because they most fit the Obama mold -- well-spoken, charismatic, unifying rhetoric, credible claims (at the time) that they could take on the establishment, no serious baggage. Realistically, both were closer to Al Gore than Obama in execution, but still.
Booker clearly never had a chance in the primary to begin with, even moreso than Harris. Buttigeg suffered from never finding a strong enough constituency -- he wasn't loud enough to pull from the populist wing (who went to Bernie), but never made a serious play for any of the other major wings. He couldn't do that the way Biden did (by calling in favors with other popular Democrats) because he didn't have the connections, but didn't even try to do it the way Warren did (by advocating specific policies).
Meanwhile, Bernie never really tried to expand his coalition outside the populist and leftist wings (which he basically took all of). It turns out that those groups are not enough to win a democratic primary on their own. He was also perceived as a liability in the general -- remember, Democrats hadn't totally given up on Florida yet, and embracing the term "socialism" is a massive liability there.
Warren was somewhat effective in building a broad coalition, and had a similar strategy to Obama. She maybe could've pulled off that style of insurgent campaign. Her candidacy was doomed because of two factors: first, she is just not charismatic enough to compete with Bernie for the populist and leftist wings, but they are absolutely required for an insurgent campaign. Second, even if she had won the primary, she is a massive liability in the general election for a lot of reasons -- which ensured she was never going to win a primary when the primary concern was stopping the bleeding that Donald Trump was seemingly-deliberately causing.
Once you've ruled out Booker, Buttigeg, Sanders, and Warren, you're basically left with Biden vs. a crowd of other boring people. Is it really surprising that the guy who can barter for endorsements and trade on Obama's legacy managed to beat people like Klobuchar?
Now, you might say it's possible that those people (Booker, Buttigeg, Sanders, Warren) would have all made better candidates than Harris in 2024, and could have succeeded with Biden out of the field. I'd agree with that! I am not trying to argue that none of these people are better than Harris; I'm trying to argue that none of them are what Obama is. They were either trying to do something very different than what he did, or much worse at it. They all also lost significant "outsider" cred by 2024 for various reasons.
It's a bit more loaded than that. 538 post-Nate Silver had a model setup that was apparently kind of a mess. 538 was apparently sending strange messages to Republican leaning polling agencies, demanding they gave far more detailed audit information than usual (with the implication obviously being that they were fraudulent pollsters), and the guy running the site had fairly openly tuned his model on the assumption people cared about certain talking points. 538 was predicting Biden victories even when the polls were so overwhelmingly against him that not even the most Democratic leaning polling agencies had trust in him; even if you aren't running difficult math, that means something has gone wrong with the model.
(Something which got worse after Harris was picked, although every polling aggregator went barmy - there's suspicions that a lot of polling agencies aggressively normalized their data to avoid being seen as biased, leading to an almost 50/50 split.)
So, I would actually agree with you that 538 was a mess in that period. I would actually trace the first problems back to Enten's departure, but it did get worse when Silver left.
It's just that this particular criticism (that they got it "wrong") doesn't seem very well founded.
Biden got literally 0% of the vote despite 538 predicting him to win.
They chose to pretend Biden's mental decline wasn't happening because that was the Democrat party line at the time. How can you trust predictions from someone who is willing to manipulate his results to prop up his political party?
What would you have them do in that period? Give Trump a 100% chance of winning? Make up a candidate who wasn't actually running? Arguably the most realistic thing to do would be to give X% Trump, Y% Some Democrat -- but had they done that, they'd have been rightly criticized for making an obvious vibe-driven decision. You can't change a quantitative prediction based on qualitative observations; all you can do is try to find more and better data sources.
The issue the models had in that period was pretty well documented: the models rated fundamentals (like economic indicators) more highly relative to polls when the election was farther in the future. Those were the same economic indicators that famously do not capture the pain average Americans have felt since COVID, and that politicians across the spectrum have tried to use to deny that pain when they are in power.
You can argue that this issue was well known at the time, and that a better group of analysts might have taken action to mitigate it. I'd argue that myself. It turns out that it's kind of hard, but that's a terrible excuse not to try. That is different than deliberately manipulating results for political ends, though. It's unclear what political ends those would even be -- who exactly benefits from an "unclear winner" forecast in that situation?
The simpler variant of this is to obtain a gift certificate. They are required to let you spend it it, so you can get into the store that way. Bring cash, though -- they don't love that people do this, so they don't always take credit cards on these transactions.
Sending a letter containing public information to a place that hasn't heard yet is not insider trading, even if you own the post office. Algorithmic trading firms are doing the modern equivalent of this at all times to arbitrage the NYC/LON/HK exchanges.
The classic example is that sitting outside a factory and counting trucks does not result in insider information, but driving the trucks does. Even though it is the same information.
Not quite the same thing since it was a school official rather than police, but we had something similar in the US. Right down to confiscation of a juvenille sign.
That still seems somewhat defensible to me; there has to be line somewhere (you probably would want to suspend students advertising crack cocaine use during school, right?). And "I got suspended during school despite doing something that was not literally illegal" is a weak position in the first place IMO.
But police knocking on your door and confiscating your device because you called some politician an "idiot" by posting an online meme seems almost unthinkable in the US, when even the president himself is slinging insults like that at political opponents all the time.
My point is not that there is clear black/white line and the US have free speech and Europe doesn't, just that the free speech/defamation tradeoff is slightly different.
Important that it was not "during school". The student in question had not even been to school that day. He just showed up at an event that was near the school, that school officials were also at.
But your overall point - that not every population defines free speech the same way - is accurate. I think the difference here is just a bit less than sometimes implied.
Maybe, but it was during school hours. Every court ruling on this decided that it counted as "school speech", which makes sense to me, similarly to how a school should be able to suspend if you misbehave on a school trip IMO.
The more your toolchain (compilers, linters, etc) can statically verify, the better agents will do.
The terser the code, the better agents will do.
The more often similar problems have been solved in open source, the better agents will do. Agents seem particularly good at plumbing together different pieces of software.
Anything that requires a judgement call, as opposed to having one obvious way to do it, will get worse results from an agent.
As the scope of the request grows, agents get worse at it. This can be mitigated somewhat using various techniques ("write a plan", "do step 1 of the plan", etc) but never fully resolved. At some point the task is so big that it's necessary to do large parts by hand.
reply