Anyone else immediately think "Clippy for developers".

I thought we all moved over to Niquests and/or aiocquic and HTTP/3 these days.

"my bet is that close to no one knows what the acronym BDD stands for".

That's disconcerting. Software engineers ought to know.

As a guy named Chris Smith, I can tell you, people do absolutely "match people on first and last name", and it causes me no end of trouble.

I failed a background check once because they even ignore middle name/initial. The record in the system had a different MI and I provided mine. Also, birthdate, location, race, etc., were all mismatched. Thankfully, in that case, I was able to provide documentation that I was not a match, but it is incredibly frustrating to have false positives and no "this is positive but it is obviously a partially incorrect match. In the OP's hypothetical about a pre-screening background check, you might never get the opportunity to clear your name.

And most systems and forms in the USA only provide for one middle initial, which makes things tricky for those coming from other cultures.

They do unfortunately. I know someone with a more unusual surname who was getting chased for the debt of someone with the same name. It happens.

> I don’t know if that’s true. More schooling does not mean more trustworthy or careful doctors. And I suspect some negative trait selection.

The medical boards are well aware of this, which is why the standards are far more than just about having more schooling.

I am familiar with Friendman's dissertation, and while the economic claims it makes are solid, it isn't a take down about the medical impact of the boards. It really doesn't say one thing or another about them. Let's put it this way: if you are going to inflate the cost of a service, it's hard if the quality of the service is terrible and easily replicated by someone else.

Everything old is new again. ;-)

The article concedes that there is a minimum power consumption. Thinking that therefore defines your generation strategy (e.g. I will have plants that constantly generate that minimum amount and the rest I'll handle with separate peak plants) is a myth.

> Thinking that therefore defines your generation strategy (e.g. I will have plants that constantly generate that minimum amount and the rest I'll handle with separate peak plants) is a myth.

The strategy would be to have economical, non-intermittent generation. It would be non-intermittent supply because that part of demand is non-intermittent.

It is a reasonable strategy if you have some non-intermittent generation that is significantly more economical than the other options. It's not a requirement for all grids in all technological contexts.

That strategy makes no sense when dispatchable power generation is cheaper than non-intermittent generation. This happened about 20 years ago when natgas became cheaper than coal.

> This happened about 20 years ago when natgas became cheaper than coal.

With or without externalities like climate change costed in?

Yes. natgas + purchased carbon credits are cheaper than nuclear.

Dude, that's like, our kids' problem.

...because they have other goals beyond reduce carbon emissions.

Better a financial barrier than a physical one. If satellites and spaceships are literally smashing in to each other, I have a hard time interpreting it as anything other than a regulatory failure.

Are there other OSS LLMOps projects that have overtaken you? I couldn't think of one.