Actually, just like this video, his schtick was that he would take all comers to debate, and he always gathered a number of people who actually took that up and even if they knew he debated in bad faith, they saw the chance to be in the conversation and generate content supporting their contrary views by showing how much of an obtuse asshole Charlie Kirk was.
Large numbers of people went to his events to specifically disagree with him.
I'd say as a person, he can express his thoughts. For him to personally condemn the events is good. For him to say that if the federal government were reasonable, Netanyahu should be arrested.
I think declaring that he would try to use his authority as mayor to pull the NYPD into it against the will of the federal government is a bit more tricky. During a debate when every single last other person pandered to Israel he made the solid point that a Mayor's job is to tend to his city, not foreign affairs. This sort of undermines that point. Admittedly, technically he still would only get involved if Netanyahu came to NYC, but by declaring this so publicly it has had the effect of provoking Netanyahu, who seemed to be inclined to test Mamdani's words by defiantly coming to NYC with Trump if Mamdani were elected.
I could see someone being frustrated that from a third party, it looks like you are not responding to a reply and that person could spin that as a concession that they were right
I could see a compromise, where a direct reply from such a blocked/muted person is allowed, but indicated so that people are aware a response could not have been done.
Perhaps, but there's the challenge of who gets to declare genocide formally. A city mayor no matter how large probably shouldn't be able to unilaterally do so when no authority recognized by his nation does so.
I agree Netanyahu should be arrested, but I just don't think a city mayor can reasonably unilaterally do so. Certainly from a practical standpoint it's a nightmare if your own federal government will be at odds over the arrest of a foreign leader.
Perhaps, but I think his message from the debate was better: The job is to be mayor of a city, there's no reason the office should have anything at all to do with foreign affairs so long as those affairs stay out of the city.
Like personally I appreciate calling out the atrocity, but it isn't the job of the mayor to be neck deep in that either way.
I'm not a huge fan of anyone meeting this sort of end.
A little mixed feelings because on the other hand I have a bit of an appreciation of the context of a man that has openly consistently declared gun deaths as somewhat acceptable getting killed by a gun.
But ultimately, I would have rather seen him get his ass kicked or a few handgun bullets to the vest to give him some appropriate fear and consequences without him becoming a martyr. Ideally i would have liked him to just get scared into not actively trying to troll people the way he did. Further for it to be clear from the very first moment that it was MAGA infighting, to avoid the incident increasing an already strained division and maybe show the movement the dangerous game they are playing.
Left out being nagged to death about other products and services microsoft thinks you should buy.
Yes, but just like quality, the people in charge of money aren't totally on top of security either. They just see superficially convincing tutorial fodder and start declaring they will soon be able to get rid of all those pesky people. Even if you convince them a human does it better, they are inclined to think 'good enough for the price'.
So you can't say "it's no better than human at quality" and expect those people to be discouraged, it has to be pointed out how wildly off base it is.
One issue that remains is that the LLM doesn't care if it is telling the truth or lying. To be a CEO, it needs to be more inclined to lie.
If, hypothetically, the code had the same efficacy and quality as human code, then it would be much cheaper and faster. Even if it was actually a little bit worse, it still would be amazingly useful.
My dishwasher sometimes doesn't fully clean everything, it's not as strong as a guarantee as doing it myself. I still use it because despite the lower quality wash that requires some spot washing, I still come out ahead.
Now this was hypothetical, LLM generated code is damn near useless for my usage, despite assumptions it would do a bit more. But if it did generate code that matched the request with comparable risk of bugs compared to doing it myself, I'd absolutely be using it. I suppose with the caveat that I have to consider the code within my ability to actual diagnose problems too..
Based on my experience, I'm skeptical someone that seemingly delegates their reasoning to an LLM were really good engineers in the first place.
Whenever I've tried, it's been so useless that I can't really develop a reflex, since it would have to actually help for me to get used to just letting it do it's thing.
Meanwhile the people who are very bullish who are ostensibly the good engineers that I've worked with are the people who became pet engineers of executives and basically have long succeeded by sounding smart to those executives rather than doing anything or even providing concrete technical leadership. They are more like having something akin to Gartner on staff, except without even the data that at least Gartner actually gathers, even as Gartner is a useless entity with respect to actual guidance.
Of all the things one could find fault with Miller, porcelain dolls are not even on my list. A man who openly stated that he would have red states send their National Guards into uncooperative blue states without permission, and folks are talking about whether or not he has what sounds like an innocuous if not unusual hobby.