It's quickly becoming a replacement for Google for me. When I want to know more about a topic I don't usually go to Google or Wikpedia as often, instead I'll start a dialog with Claude about the topic.

I also use it for writing, exploring complex topics or as a sounding board for interpersonal issues.

const exploring = Object.freeze({ immutable: true }) exploring.thing = 'new'

Property 'thing' does not exist on type 'Readonly<{ immutable: true; }>'.ts(2339)

So it would be a simple way to achieve it.

That's opting into immutability, the point of the experiment is having it by default. Plus, that's just the type system preventing you from adding a property. It won't stop you from trying to change the `immutable` field.

I'm genuinely curious, was this AI generated, or just a lack of understanding?

No, you're the one that's incorrect, typescript blocks mutations when you use Object.freeze too: "Cannot assign to 'immutable' because it is a read-only property. (2540)"

You can also use "as const" to get the same behavior without any runtime calls:

    const exploring = { immutable: true } as const
    exploring.immutable = false
              ^ Cannot assign to 'immutable' because it is a read-only property.(2540)

But yes, OP wasn't referring to the article, they were just pointing out the narrower fact that Typescript does in fact have compile-time errors for mutating Object.freeze's return values.

My work pays for copilot subscriptions, they don't pay for claude code.

I see. id still suggest benchmarking the sota setup first

Or people are sick, or drunk or high and want food but also want to be safe.

Fundrise innovation fund is an investor and so you could through that fund.

In all of your examples you're working at a company, ideally the person running the company had that domain expertise.

No, the person running the company has expertise running companies. Customer understanding lies with designers, analysts, product owners, product management, but also sales: what is the pain we’re addressing, how can ensure the customers really understands the consequences of not addressing the pain, how can we ensure the customer sees our product is the best to address their pain.

Revenue growth slid to low single digits, meaning instead of adding 20% more accounts, they only had less than 5% new accounts or revenue

That makes sense, but it definitely wasn't what the artical said a few hours ago. It looks like it has been expanded quite a bit since I read it.

Or humans and putting too much money on the ponies

Crypto is so inherently wasteful it's completely unethical. At least they're trying to use hydro here but by and large, this is an unreasonable resource grab.

To add to this, the article states it's the equivalent of 570,000 apartments worth of energy.

To what end? There is still no real use case for bitcoin, it can't compete with any modern financial transaction system in performance, it's difficult to secure, it's just a bad deal and I can't understand how we've allowed it to grow as much as it has.

Without delving too much into the utility of the practice, skateboarding as a past time is a rather commonly banned activity in common spaces.

The issue here is not that someone is doing something voluntarily and devoting resources to it, but rather that someone is taking an action that involves the consumption of a rivalrous good. The court's ruling notes this explicitly (from the article) "the very real prospect that devoting such a large proportion of the available electrical power supply to one industry would leave less energy for other uses which might result in increased costs to all other residential and industry customers in B.C.”

> skateboarding is inherently wasteful, should we ban that too?

* Skateboarding does not waste nearly as much energy

* Each joule expended Skateboarding is spent increasing fun, on crypto spent on greed

* More skate borders makes more fun, more miners is less fun

Not just energy, crypto is also using far more rare earth minerals and metals in their excessive utilization of CPUs and GPUs. Batteries to keep things running when power goes out. It's wasting so very many of our resources. There is no defense.

skateboarding doesn't scale to take up all available resources. I could be 10x the skater as Tony Hawk and I'd still only use one skateboard at a time. Doesn't matter if it's a $1,000,000 skateboard, I'm still only using one at a time. Meanwhile, $1,000,000 of cryptomining by one person is going to use so many more joules, and for what?

Is the commercial exploitation of several finite resources —skyrocketing their market prices— to generate nothing of actual value really just like skateboarding?

That's a bad analogy. The wastefulness of crypto affects us all.

If skateboarding consumed 2% of our total power consumption then yes, it would be unethical and probably subject to stringent regulations.

Skateboarding isn't using millions of dollars of energy, that outside of this instance is frequently carbon producing.

Could they have moved the Zune team to the Xbox team or Surface team, the windows teams to azure or Xbox, etc?