thebestaquaman

Guy had 97 priors including DUIs.

Hence the photo, which should make it pretty easy to figure out who the guy is when he's already registered in the system. Once you know who he is you quickly find out where he's living, because again, the guy has 97 priors, so the cops should have a solid database on where he tends to reside and who he knows.

The fucking day he got out he bought a cheap used car, slapped an old out-of-state license plate on it, and went right back to driving around drunk as shit.

That's absolutely horrendous... hope he gets caught again before he kills someone...

Besides that: That could quickly be a situation where whoever is apprehending him recognises that he's drunk-driving and that he's a big enough threat to the public to warrant chasing him down instead of letting him go and apprehending him later.

Or, hear me out: The cops that are well enough educated and trained to recognise that it's safer to just track down the guy later will also be well enough educated and trained to not do that. Because doing that would be stupid, and the whole point here is that you can and should select and train people with a monopoly on violence to not do stupid shit that gets people killed.

The only research I've seen on using LLMs in a school setting found that the kids that were given access to an LLM performed a bit better on exercises that those without. At the same time their experienced learning was a lot better. When they finally got a test assignment, the kids that had been using LLMs during exercises flopped and performed significantly worse than those that hadn't.

Or, as is commonly done elsewhere, get their plates and a photo, and drop by their house later (unless they're an active threat to public safety of course).

This is literally the SOP in a lot of other countries: You don't chase someone in a vehicle unless you absolutely have to. You rather just identify them and apprehend them at a later point.

The worst conceivable argument: When someone tries to shut you down by claiming that "you're always so combatative, why can't you just let this go?"

My brother in Christ... you are arguing with me. You are provably being at least as combative as myself. Why can't YOU just let this go? And of course, if you do anything other than let them have their way, they take that as proof that you never let anything pass.

Which is still utterly absurd, because it implies that a harder working dev would be spending more time chatting to a bot.

Awesome, thanks!

I've been thinking of self-hosting a server (and some other stuff)for a while. I hope you don't mind that I post this comment just so I (hopefully) can try getting back to you for tips when I get around to buying the hardware.

I agree with the premise of "simple but hard". However, I still want to underscore that large areas of the ocean will at any given time be covered in clouds or fog. Sure, once you find the ship the first time, you've narrowed your search radius significantly, but a ship that can move at 30 knots can move around 1500 nautical miles (2800 km) without being seen under just 48 hours of cloud cover. That means any intel on the position of a ship carrying weapons that can easily strike at ranges of 500-1000 km is fresh produce. Just a day after you spotted that ship, it can have moved almost 1500 km, and if you lose track of it under clouds during your next satellite pass, it can suddenly be 3000 km from where you last spotted it.

What this means is that the "hard" element here is significant. Even the "simple" element becomes complicated by stuff like night time and cloud cover. All this taken into account, there are very few countries in the world with enough surveillance satellites and processing capacity to actually keep a pin on a ship at sea over any significant period of time.

One of the worst things about this is that the person vibe coding just ends up shitting on the reviewers time. Like... you couldn't even bother to write a real PR, and now you want me to spend time filtering your shit? Fuck off.

It’s 3.7x more lines of code that performs 2,000 times worse than the actual SQLite.

Pretty much my experience with LLM coding agents. They'll write a bunch of stuff, and come with all kinds of arguments about why what they're doing is in fact optimal and perfect. If you know what you're doing, you'll quickly find a bunch of over-complicating things and just plain pitfalls. I've never been able to understand the people that claim LLMs can build entire projects (the people that say stuff like "I never write my own code anymore"), since I've always found it to be pretty trash at anything beyond trivial tasks.

Of course, it makes sense that it'll elaborate endlessly about how perfect its solution is, because it's a glorified auto-complete, and there's plenty of training data with people explaining why "solution X is better".

It's not about the pictures. I honestly think this is just an excuse to get rid of journalists, and a method for hammering home the point that "journalists bad. news fake." I'm not even sure he's actually seen the pictures I question.

With that said, I wouldn't put it past him to actually be so vain that it is really about the pictures. However I think it's more likely that he would have done something like this anyway, and just picked an excuse.