I don't get it, AI does some impressive things but I don't trust it to write any code that goes to production. I've used AI for many one off python scripts for visualizing some log files that mostly worked, which was convenient. Maybe AI is just bad at embedded C but the other day I had it write some code that resulted in a subtle error because the AI didn't account for C truncating, not rounding, when doing math with integers. It makes me wonder if most errors are going undetected since reviewing code can be harder than writing code.
So articles like this that someone is using AI in finance scare me. Maybe the big 4 are using AI as an excuse to put pressure to get lower rates, it doesn't mean they actually think AI is capable of it. Or maybe auditing was already a racket that is easily disrupted by another racket.
I also recommend that podcast but I would suggest balancing it with '5-4' podcast or 'strict scrutiny'. Sara and David do a very good job explaining both sides and the law but there are times I think advisory opinions could spend more time on the arguments made by the other side or the weaker portions of their supported view.
Oof, I couldn't stand to make it through one episode of Strict Scrutiny. It was a political podcast dressed up as if it were a legal podcast. Not interested.
You can’t talk about the Supreme Court/US legal system and just omit politics. They also don’t make any sort of promise to be neutral or objective top to bottom.
They aren’t judges making decisions, they’re talking about the law on a podcast.
This is not true, in my experience, in rural Indiana. I hear the n word a lot for an area that I have yet to meet a black person. One neighbor was complaining about the California family that moved to town and brought all the drug problems with them, despite our county having been the meth capital of Indiana for years before they moved here. Somehow my first conversation with a friend's mom I met while visiting their rural farm involved how there were no black people in the area. But this is why all anecdotal data should be taken with a grain of salt.
You'd probably still win the wager but I do want to say there are some of us using C23. We even use it in our embedded systems running on arm based microcontrollers. Though we still do maintain some C89 code :(
Kermit is interesting also, though my understanding was that it was not quite as good as taking advantage of higher available data rates; am I wrong about that?
Kermit defaulted to settings that would transmit 8-bit data over 7E1 through a noisy 110 bps channel (not really, but that gives the flavor - though it could do that if asked). Much-maligned because most terminal programs implemented the base case and nothing more, which was awful.
It was not trivial to reconfigure, but if you did, it had very good throughput. And if you had to make an EBCDIC/ASCII translation, it did that well. Kermit always works. That's the point of the protocol. If you want it to be fast, that's up to you. I did not realize this until I met Kermit gurus who taught me.
Entirely possible I don't understand something as I'm not sure what you mean by taking advantage of higher data rates. We're sending data over UART at the max rate that doesn't introduce too many bit errors. Mainly we needed a protocol to correct for the bit errors (by rerequesting data) and I've always used x/y/z modem for that purpose.
I picked Kermit this time because I didn't want to implement x/y/z modem again and had never used Kermit.
This [1] claims Kermit is faster in some instances depending on what features you have enabled.
I was wrong, and you are correct! I had thought that XMODEM was more efficient as the bandwidth increases but I was wrong; due to the fixed length of time for the ACK response, the efficiency drops to under 80% at a data rate of 9600bps; Kermit does not have this issue.
It probably depends on the bank somewhat. My local community Bank in a small rural town won't have many, if any, million dollar home mortgages, maybe some of the farm or business loans are that large.
Also I hope you meant £1M is ~$25 M today and not £1 :D
So articles like this that someone is using AI in finance scare me. Maybe the big 4 are using AI as an excuse to put pressure to get lower rates, it doesn't mean they actually think AI is capable of it. Or maybe auditing was already a racket that is easily disrupted by another racket.