There may have been some extra incentive for the Trump administration to get the TikTok US deal done. According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration is set to receive a total of $10 billion in the deal that allowed TikTok to remain in the US. The new investors who acquired stakes in the US entity of TikTok already paid a $2.5 billion fee to the administration when the deal closed in January, but WSJ‘s latest report noted that the group of investors would continue to make payments until the total hits $10 billion.

After a group of investors, which includes Oracle along with the Silver Lake and MGX investment firms, acquired stakes in the US-based TikTok entity called TikTok USDS Joint Venture, the WSJ previously reported that the administration would receive a “multibillion-dollar fee” for its work on the deal. To better contextualize the recently-revealed $10 billion fee the Trump administration is receiving, the US entity of TikTok was valued at $14 billion by Vice President JD Vance.

The Trump administration has previously involved itself in major deals with other US corporations. Last year, the administration invested $8.9 billion into Intel and received a nearly 9 percent equity stake. In terms of unprecedented windfalls, the Trump administration also received a Boeing 747-8 as a gift from the Qatari government in May.

Long-time tech journalist Clive Thompson interviewed over 70 software developers at Google, Amazon, Microsoft and start-ups for a new article on AI-assisted programming. It’s title?

“Coding After Coders: The End of Computer Programming as We Know It.”

Published in the prestigious New York Times Magazine, the article even cites long-time programming guru Kent Beck saying LLMs got him going again and he’s now finishing more projects than ever, calling AI’s unpredictability “addictive, in a slot-machine way.”

In fact, the article concludes “many Silicon Valley programmers are now barely programming. Instead, what they’re doing is deeply, deeply weird…”

Brennan-Burke chimed in: “You remember seeing the research that showed the more rude you were to models, the better they performed?” They chuckled. Computer programming has been through many changes in its 80-year history. But this may be the strangest one yet: It is now becoming a conversation, a back-and-forth talk fest between software developers and their bots…
For decades, being a software developer meant mastering coding languages, but now a language technology itself is upending the very nature of the job… A coder is now more like an architect than a construction worker… Several programmers told me they felt a bit like Steve Jobs, who famously had his staffers churn out prototypes so he could handle lots of them and settle on what felt right. The work of a developer is now more judging than creating…

If you want to put a number on how much more productive A.I. is making the programmers at mature tech firms like Google, it’s 10 percent, Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, has said. That’s the bump that Google has seen in “engineering velocity” — how much faster its more than 100,000 software developers are able to work. And that 10 percent is the average inside the company, Ryan Salva, a senior director of product at the company, told me. Some work, like writing a simple test, is now tens of times faster. Major changes are slower. At the start-ups whose founders I spoke to, closer to 100 percent of their code is being written by A.I., but at Google it is not quite 50 percent.
The article cites a senior principal engineer at Amazon who says “Things I’ve always wanted to do now only take a six-minute conversation and a ‘Go do that.” Another programmer described their army of Claude agents as “an alien intelligence that we’re learning to work with.” Although “A.I. being A.I., things occasionally go haywire,” the article acknowledges — and after relying on AI, “Some new developers told me they can feel their skills weakening.”

Still, “I was surprised by how many software developers told me they were happy to no longer write code by hand. Most said they still feel the jolt of success, even with A.I. writing the lines… ”

A few programmers did say that they lamented the demise of hand-crafting their work. “I believe that it can be fun and fulfilling and engaging, and having the computer do it for you strips you of that,” one Apple engineer told me. (He asked to remain unnamed so he wouldn’t get in trouble for criticizing Apple’s embrace of A.I.) He went on: “I didn’t do it to make a lot of money and to excel in the career ladder. I did it because it’s my passion. I don’t want to outsource that passion”… But only a few people at Apple openly share his dimmer views, he said.

The coders who still actively avoid A.I. may be in the minority, but their opposition is intense. Some dislike how much energy it takes to train and deploy the models, and others object to how they were trained by tech firms pillaging copyrighted works. There is suspicion that the sheer speed of A.I.’s output means firms will wind up with mountains of flabbily written code that won’t perform well. The tech bosses might use agents as a cudgel: Don’t get uppity at work — we could replace you with a bot. And critics think it is a terrible idea for developers to become reliant on A.I. produced by a small coterie of tech giants.

Thomas Ptacek, a Chicago-based developer and a co-founder of the tech firm Fly.io… thinks the refuseniks are deluding themselves when they claim that A.I. doesn’t work well and that it can’t work well… The holdouts are in the minority, and “you can watch the five stages of grief playing out.”
“How things will shake out for professional coders themselves isn’t yet clear,” the article concludes. “But their mix of exhilaration and anxiety may be a preview for workers in other fields… Abstraction may be coming for us all.”

from the giant-heaping-pile-of-bullshit dept

Last election season, you might recall how the Trump campaign lied to everyone repeatedly about how his second administration would “rein in big tech,” and be a natural extension of the Lina Khan antitrust movement. As we noted at the time, that was always an obvious fake populist lie, but it was propped up anyway by a lazy press and a long line of useful idiots (including some purported “antitrust experts“.)

This last year has truly revealed the con: Trump not only has demolished regulatory independence, media consolidation rules, and consumer protection standards, he’s rubber stamped every shitty merger his administration has come into contact with (provided companies promise to be more racist), and fired the few Republicans in his administration that even vaguely cared about antitrust.

Trump’s latest betrayal to the the MAGA antitrust movement (that never really existed outside the skulls of rubes) is his DOJ’s surprise blindsiding of states by striking a pathetic settlement with Ticketmaster that doesn’t really fix the actual problem: monopoly.

The Biden DOJ and most US states sued Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary back in 2024, alleging that Live Nation has a monopoly on “the delivery of nearly all live music in America today.”

But while a new Trump settlement with the company requires $280 million in civil penalties and a 15% cap on service fees for people who want to use their amphitheaters, it backs off any attempt to pursue a break up of Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the one move that would actually (more permanently) help protect consumers, artists, and the live music market from predatory behavior.

The Trump DOJ and pedophile protector Pam Bondi struck the deal behind closed doors and didn’t bother to tell any of the 27 states (including many Republican ones) currently fighting Ticketmaster in court. It’s another win for Bondi loyalists (whose function is to blindly serve our mad idiot king) and the final middle finger to Gail Slater and Mark Hamer types that at least sometimes cared about antitrust.

States are, you may be unsurprised to learn, pissed off and planning to continue the fight alone, though they say the Trump DOJ has caused potentially irreparable harm:

“The case went to trial, and testimony began last week in US District Court for the Southern District of New York. But the US and Live Nation informed the court of a proposed settlement on March 8, taking state attorneys general by surprise. The judge presiding over the case reportedly said in court today that the way the settlement was announced “is absolutely unacceptable.

States reserving the right to continue litigation filed a motion for mistrial, saying they need time to prepare for a new trial and evaluate the terms of the settlement between the US and Live Nation. The “sudden disappearance” of the US from the case will likely give the jury the incorrect impression that Live Nation’s “antitrust violations have been cured or resolved, or that Proceeding Plaintiff States’ claims lack merit,” the states said.”

Advertisement

This was always going to be the outcome. There were constant signs. Trump is an autocrat, fascist, and opportunist who believes in nothing beyond his own pursuit of power and wealth. The corruption and autocracy was always going to dominate any serious Republican interest in antitrust (which, let’s be honest, even among Gail Slater types was historically inconsistent at best).

The MAGA base belief in this line of bullshit was one thing, but Trump’s antitrust bona fides were also propped up by folks like purported progressive antitrust expert Matt Stoller, who praised guys like JD Vance and Josh Hawley for being serious anti-corporatists, when the entire thing was always a con designed to give phony populist credibility to autocrats who never had to actually earn it.

The U.S. press also played a giant role here. They spent years propping up Trump’s false claims he “wanted to rein in big tech,” when what the authoritarians really wanted was to abuse government power to scare (quite successfully as it turned out) tech companies away from doing even the most basic content moderation of right wing race-baiting propaganda online.

Now, unsurprisingly, here we are, staring down the barrel of democracy demolishing authoritarianism, with unchecked corporate power in full alignment with the effort.

Filed Under: antitrust, concerts, consolidation, donald trump, gail slater, maga, matt stoller, monopoly

Companies: live nation, ticketmaster

Happy Pi Day! March 14 is the date that otherwise rational people celebrate this irrational number, because 3/14 contains the first three digits of pi. And hey, pi deserves a day. By definition, it’s the ratio of the circumference and diameter of a circle, but it shows up in all kinds of places that seem to have nothing to do with circles, from music to quantum mechanics.

Pi is an infinitely long decimal number that never repeats. How do we know? Well, humans have calculated it to 314 trillion decimal places and didn’t reach the end. At that point, I’m inclined to accept it. I mean, NASA uses only the first 15 decimal places for navigating spacecraft, and that’s more than enough for earthly applications.

The coolest thing, for me, is that there are many ways to approximate that value, which I’ve written about in the past. For instance, you can do it by oscillating a mass on a spring. But maybe the craziest method of all was proven in 1777 by George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon.

Decades earlier, Buffon had posed this as a probability question in geometry: Imagine you have a floor with parallel lines separated by a distance d. Onto this floor, you drop a bunch of needles with length L. What is the probability that a needle will cross one of the parallel lines?

A picture will help you understand what’s happening. Let’s say I drop just two needles on the floor (feel free to replace the needles with something safer, like toothpicks). Also, just to make things easier later, we can say that the needle length and line spacing are equal (d = L).

You can see that one of the needles crosses a line and the other doesn’t. OK, but what are the chances? This is not the most trivial problem, but let’s think about just one dropped needle. We only care about two values—the distance (x) from the farther end of the needle to a line, and the angle of the needle (θ) with respect to a perpendicular (see the diagram below). If x is less than half the spacing between lines, we get a needle-crossing. As you can see, you’d get a higher probability with a smaller x or a smaller θ.