Re: Microsoft admits 30% of code not written by humans

On Sun, 5/4/2025 7:41 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:

On 2025-05-03 22:16, rbowman wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2025 19:47:31 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>

To be fair, he said that Canada would benefit from being a part of the
United States, and I agree with him on that point. He also made it clear
that the only kind of conflict he would have with Canada was an economic
one. Only those who don't understand sarcasm and humour believed that he
was willing to have any kind of armed conflict.

>
https://www.compactmag.com/article/how-trump-won-the-canadian-election/
>
I'm not familiar with Comppact but Media Bias labels them right center.
They have an interesting take on how Trump trolled Canadians into a
reignited national pride that Trudeau was trying to do away with.

 
That's exactly what I'm saying. My wife was immediately mad about his decision, but I loved it specifically because I knew that it was going to help Canadian companies to thrive. American goods would get expensive and some jobs would be lost, but those Canadian enterprises catering to a Canadian client base would finally get noticed. Additionally, people themselves would develop a certain distrust of the United States which only leads to renewed nationalism and a desire to find new places to sell their product: _exactly_ what I've been wanting our government to do since the late 90s. In other words, in punishing Canada, Trump has caused our collective brain to wake up from its slumber.
 

Nobody wins in a trade war with tariffs.

Ask an economist, for a projection.

For example, there was an article the other day, with a
quotation from an actual economist (I thought they had
given up on commenting on things). He indicated that when
the tariff levels hit 50%, that "pretty well stops all trade
on a dime". Thus when some knob names "125%" as a tariff level,
that amounts to an "embargo", if the individual had actually
asked an economist what the numbers mean :-/

Sure, some country might thrive. Another country might not.
But just as easily, Sparkle Ponies could fly out of my butt.

Would you risk your countries future. on unproven ideas ?
"I believe in the trickle down theory. If we make our
rich people even richer, the poor cannot help but thrive."
Which was never in evidence. Once you've bought your first
Gulf Stream jet, you don't keep buying them in proportion
to the size of your portfolio. Your consumption has limited
effect. Maybe you buy a rocket company to put
datacenters in space :-/ Which is what a rich knob just did.
But the guy has espoused Skynet ideas, he's a "1984 Matrix man",
so I can see why he is doing it, and it's not for the reason
in the press release.

We've done some trade deals in the past, where both countries
could go back to their people and say "see what a good boy am I ?
I make-a the trade deal". The proof is when actual trade occurs.
Maybe the distance or the transport cost or a currency problem,
completely thwart such an idea. What the trade deal does do,
is it is "promotional" and says "we're ready to do business",
but when later, you hear nothing at all about the effects
of the particular deal, you have to wonder whether any purpose was
served but promotion.

To believe that "globalization works", you have to have parties
that are "rich enough to afford your goods and want to go
to the trouble of acquiring them". If you look at the Earths surface,
there are precious few markets that qualify, that do not already
have a self contained economy. China buys agricultural goods,
as there likely isn't enough local production to feed everyone.
Maybe they have enough coal, to make all the power they need.

If I was you, I would think this way. "Every day, seven billion
people wipe their ass with bog roll. As a net producer of
bog roll, I cannot help but become rich! Profit!". This is not
in evidence. People who cannot afford bog roll, are wiping their
ass on something else. Fewer people like your bog roll with the
white kittens on the plastic packaging. For some, the exchange
rate makes your bog roll, an unreachable goal.

Idealogs and wishful thinking, serve no one.

There has to be some demonstrable (directly observable fact, like
pressing on this end of a lever, causes that end of the
lever to move), to make a policy worthwhile
(execution highly likely to have results).

The current era amounts to "break things", as a policy. Great.
I can easily compute my profit by doing that. It's ???
Fuck-Nose dollars in evidence.

Since there is no reason to agree to unreasonable trade terms,
then the tariffs will stay. And the global recession will begin.
As a government, do you have money to spend on new pipelines,
new shipping terminals, additional rail lines, when a recession
is present ?

You will notice, that the business response verbally so far,
is exactly what you would expect. "The tariff on China is too
high, I am moving my production to Vietnam." Notice how the
name of their own country, did not appear in the press release.
There was no indication of domestic policy change. Maybe our
electronics will be made in Saudi Arabia (do a search).

   Paul