Which component is the bombardier?

That’s Finance. They don't fly the plane; they just wait for the right moment to drop the bill for those premium tokens.

Everyone on my team has been running into this, including the super users on the Max plan and the skeptics who only use it every few days. The quota is going way faster than it did before, sometimes a single prompt will eat up a third or more of the session quota.

“Ad” doesn’t mean “paid for”. A “tip” linking to some other place, injected into a place with no permission or context, is an “ad” in every meaningful sense (and if this “tip” system were left in place it would soon enough be turned into a pay-for explicit ad system). If someone at Microsoft deludes themselves that they are just trying to be helpful, that doesn’t change the impact and result of their actions.

Updated to add on March 31: Martin Woodward, VP of Developer Relations, GitHub, said in a statement: "GitHub does not and does not plan to include advertisements in GitHub. We identified a programming logic issue with a GitHub Copilot coding agent tip that surfaced in the wrong context within a pull request comment. We have removed agent tips from pull request comments moving forward."

Wow, well that is clearly a bald-faced lie.

They're not even trying. But this time 'the hacker did it' excuse wouldn't hold so they had to come up with something new in a hurry.

Nah, PR text is a completely inappropriate place for a tip to appear. A PR description should describe the contents of the PR, not include unrelated, unsolicited advice. It’d be like submitting a bug fix, and saying “this PR fixes bug X, and also, have you considered using a different linter in this project?” Completely inappropriate.

Tips are also not acceptable to add to PR text. It’s like the definition of a “weed”. A “tip” in the GitHub UI would make sense. But “tips” injected into my own PR text become unwelcome ads. In any case, what may be helpful “tips” today are only a gateway to straight up paid ads tomorrow. After all, I get told all the time by adtech folks that actually, the ads and all the tracking behind them are good because aren’t I glad the ads are relevant to my interests and that I’m supporting small businesses online whose shops can only exist because of the ad infrastructure. To which I say, no, they aren’t, and that’s a lie.

The bigger question is, why is that even the primary goal?

I believe the idea is to support the “real” economy vs a “paper” economy. The “real” economy manufactures stuff in meat space instead of making value through abstractions like financial derivatives. The real economies are tied to a stronger middle class and national security. That’s the thesis as I understand it.

A service-based economy is also a "real" economy and not a "paper" economy

The fundamental problem is the asymmetry of value creation. Software is perhaps the pinnacle of this, and why tech companies are so unfathomably wealthy.

A team of 10 SWEs can create a product worth $1B with the cost of 10 laptops. You get ten people worth $100M each.

To create $1B in value with any kind of manufacturing business, is going to take hundreds of people utilizing millions in various costs. You end up with something like 10,000 people worth $100k each once you wind your way through all those supply lines.

You said it better. I think the idea is that certain "paper" economies are disproportionately valued in the economy when the dollar is strong. A strong dollar leads to offshoring manufacturing, which leads to an over weighted "paper" economy, which leads to an eroding middle class.

I agree, depending on what services you’re speaking of. Although I don’t know that it meets the explicit aims of the heritage foundation (which was the OPs question).

Because Conservative politics is about returning to a past that often can no longer exist.

Or didn't exist to begin with. All too often mythologized into an absurd caricature of the past.

I didn't realize that such causes like 90+% income taxes, lower income inequality, single earner households, and high unionization rates are "conservative" too.

No one actually paid 90% income taxes. I wish that myth would go away.

Of course because that’s how marginal tax rates work.

As to how much actual money was taxed at 91%, we don’t really have records for that but certainly the top 0.01% paid significantly more in taxes as a rate than they do today.

There were a lot more tax shelters at that time. You only paid those top rates if you had poor or no financial advice.

So nobody would mind going back to that reality right? Companies would totally pay less in taxes than they do now, right?

Oh, they fight that actually.

"That reality" was one in which the wealthy had countless deductions, loopholes, and shelters that were unavailable or inapplicable to everyone else, which (almost) everybody agreed was an undesirable state of affairs.

Actually, a past that never existed. It's pretty typically for authoritarian regimes to create idealized versions of the past as they attempt to rewrite history to better fit with their talking points and agendas.

The United States is current getting the base material for its entire economy from a country that is openly at war with it: China. If the US attacked East Tiawan because East Tiawan attacked Taiwan, East Tiawan would simply stop exporting rare earths, silver, steel, and electronics to the US. As a result the US needs to manufacture at home. So too does the EU.

It's not, they don't give two shits about workers, and their masters don't care how they make their money, just that they make it.

Manufacturing is just their preferred lie to get otherwise intelligent people to support their insanity.

> white people are likely a minority in corporate America.

I don't see how this can possibly be true.

> that has disproportionately affected hinterland communities but immigrant groups seem immune to

Or this, especially in light of data such as this: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db549.htm

The data you linked shows that Native Americans, Blacks and Whites have the highest per capita rates of overdose (in that order), which validates my claim.

White American overdose deaths per capita are 6x that of Asian-Americans.

> white people are likely a minority in corporate America.

Oh boy am I gonna need some actual data for this claim.

Even if not quite true, it doesn't change my argument since it was more about the rate of change.

You can construct the definition of white collar in a way that makes it seem like it's mostly white people, but among high paying job titles within a company, absolutely I would say there are fewer than 50% non-Jewish whites.

> Even if not quite true, it doesn't change my argument

This is one of the main points of bigotry. The facts don't matter. So when a person says something obviously ridiculous like

> among high paying job titles within a company, absolutely I would say there are fewer than 50% non-Jewish whites

the proper way to interpret is "I feel like there are too many unworthy people working there," where "too many" is entirely subjective and could be as few as one.

>"I feel like there are too many unworthy people working there"

Not at all. That was not my implication even slightly. I'm non-white btw.

Honestly didn't mean to say you were being a bigot there. But I would strongly suggest you spend some time in Google/census data/etc. to recalibrate your feelings. The TL;DR; is most high-paid corporate jobs in the US are held by a single demographic. Said demographic is a distinct minority of college graduates in the US.

One's information environment can mislead, but perhaps the process of finding information sources you consider objective, then studying them, will lead you to reevaluate the information diet that is creating a false picture of reality.

Why “non-Jewish”?

Jews are culturally isolated enough to effectively count as their own race.

Race is generally a misused concept because 99% of the time people actually mean culture, as anyone from any race can be part of a culture.

Right, when people are talking about white people being disproportionately represented (or under-represented) in high paying corporate jobs, they're definitely looking into the cultural background of those people and determining which ones fit "non-Jewish white" rather than looking at the black guy and putting him in the "not white" category based on appearance....

In my experience, you wouldn't know most Jews are Jews unless you start quizzing them about their religious practices.

This doesn’t make sense in light of the fact that we do distinguish between Hispanic and non-Hispanic in addition to white, black, etc.

How so? That's explicitly not considered to be "race," but a separate qualifier on top of it. In any case, nothing here is going to make any sense, because the entire social construct of "race" inherently makes no sense.

Are we really going to pretend like jewish white and non-jewish white doesn't make sense in a context where white is considered a race? I don't really see the sense in this pretense.

You’re going to have to explain, because while it might be obvious to you, I have no idea why you’re saying this.

You know why.

At my FAANG in Sunnyvale, I often feel like the last white guy on earth.

But I don't resent the people who stepped up to fill the jobs.

Rather, I am disappointed that these amazing jobs were basically gifted to US residents, but my fellow white people "Opted Out" of these high paying jobs.

This is a bizarre framing that totally misunderstands inflation, money, and macroeconomics.

This article makes some wild claims all based on one assertion that has no cited evidence. Beware.

Regulation is the only reasonable answer to this sort of problem. The specific suggestion may not be the best possible regulation, but we have several hundred years of proof that individual market-based action cannot solve what is basically an insurance problem.