Readit NewsThere is a potential downside, and it's this scenario because things go south.
In a way, Crunch Data was a competitor to Snowflake as they literally name themselves as "Postgresql Data Warehouse" but correct me if I'm wrong. Neon sounds more complementary to Snowflake as they were struggling with an OLTP backend, namely their Unistore product, which was announced 3 years ago but never went into general availability due to its scalability issues.
Maybe Neon was 4x more expensive, but this acquisition sounds more like an answer to Databricks than a strategic acquisition if I'm being honest. Apparently, Crunchy had $30M ARR, so it's 8x ARR, which is a cheaper answer to Databricks.
Real, meticulous code review takes absolutely forever.
If you're programming for a plane's avionics, as an example, the quality assurance bar is much, much higher. To the point where any time-saving benefits of using an LLM are most likely dwarfed by the time it takes to review and test the code.
It's easy to say LLM is a game-changer when there are no lives at stake, and therefore the cost of any errors is extremely low, and little to no QA occurs prior to being pushed to production.
As someone with some "right-leaning" views I am indeed very sad that the US is losing our edge as an international destination for higher education but I do want to see major reforms at elite institutions. I don't see a good way to accomplish these reforms without being willing to go after institutions in the only way they really care about (hurting the budget). I think we would reach a better place if we could agree to compromises where the universities concede on the "less important points" (e.g. make an earnest effort to drop everything the right calls DEI and reduce the administration to student ratio back to ~1980 levels) while the right agrees to leave funding and privileges in place but if we cannot compromise then we unfortunately end up in a position that is worse for everyone. I suspect most of the left will blame the right for being unable to compromise while most of the right will blame the right but this is kind of the same theme for every major party-aligned disagreement.
I don't agree with this international student, and other policies, or implementations, and you can't run government like you run a "move fast and break things" startup, which seems to be how the administration is operating.
But, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, and try to separate Trump's execution from the underlying ideological sentiment.
The jones act does not particularly protect US shipbuilding, the issue is it destroyed the customer base for US shipbuilding by making domestic marine transport uneconomical. It is a protection for the auto industry by making road transport of goods more cost competitive. Modify the jones act, start shipping things domestically by ship, suddenly there's a big market for ships.
> Nah, let's pay him instead!
is a solution, but obviously can't be the solution. From a distance, white hat "vulnerability disclosures" start to look like a protection racket.
Is that not available somewhere? You'd think it would be presented in detail, since this is the key reason for the default judgement.
> During parts of his testimony stretching over two days in a Texas courtroom, Jones repeatedly told jurors that he does not use email and that he had searched the contents of his phone for messages pertaining to Sandy Hook after he was sued by several family members of the victims for falsely saying the shooting was a hoax.
> Jones said that his phone search, done during the discovery phase of the trial, did not turn up any relevant messages. Texas Judge Maya Guerra Gamble has already ruled in favor of Sandy Hook parents Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis by default, saying that Jones did not comply with the rules of discovery in the case.
Nevertheless, this one liner about this topic does not specify what the discovery requests were. If the request was about finding text messages regarding a specific topic, as the term "relevant" implies, then just because text messages from Jones exist (and were improperly disclosed), doesn't speak to whether or not those text messages were relevant in this context or not.
But I know that "that document doesn't exist" is a valid response to a discovery request. Silence is not a valid response, even if the document doesn't exist.
(If one side falsely claims the document doesn't exist, the other side then can present evidence to the judge that the document does in fact exist, and that the first side is withholding evidence. If you play that game and get caught, various bad things can happen to you. The judge can look more skeptically at everything you say thereafter, the judge can rule that the other side is entitled to assuming the contents of the document are whatever would be most damaging to your side's case, you or your lawyers can be fined, and your lawyers can be disbarred. Judges deal with this kind of stuff all the time; detecting and blocking such games is a major part of what they do.)
The rest of your post is speculation.