Brandon Paddock
@brandonlive.com
Architect for AI in Word at Microsoft.
Previous: ~14 years working on Windows, with a stint as small startup CTO in the middle. I also made Tweetium (may it rest in peace).
https://brandonpaddock.substack.com
Previous: ~14 years working on Windows, with a stint as small startup CTO in the middle. I also made Tweetium (may it rest in peace).
https://brandonpaddock.substack.com
That is simply not what the data says. CR gives the 2023 Model Y a 67 / 100 for reliability. This is the same score they gave the 2024 Audi A4.
The 2023 Mustang Mach-E has a reliability score of 38 / 100. The 2023 BMW i4 got 48.
The 2023 Mustang Mach-E has a reliability score of 38 / 100. The 2023 BMW i4 got 48.
December 16, 2025 at 4:20 PM
That is simply not what the data says. CR gives the 2023 Model Y a 67 / 100 for reliability. This is the same score they gave the 2024 Audi A4.
The 2023 Mustang Mach-E has a reliability score of 38 / 100. The 2023 BMW i4 got 48.
The 2023 Mustang Mach-E has a reliability score of 38 / 100. The 2023 BMW i4 got 48.
Read the article. It’s about 5-10 year old cars, and explicitly says this:
December 15, 2025 at 7:47 PM
Read the article. It’s about 5-10 year old cars, and explicitly says this:
Musk sucks which is why I no longer drive a Tesla. But it is true they make fantastic cars, and Consumer Reports ranks them in their top ten for reliability.
This article is about old 5-10 year old used cars. As it says…
This article is about old 5-10 year old used cars. As it says…
December 15, 2025 at 7:46 PM
Musk sucks which is why I no longer drive a Tesla. But it is true they make fantastic cars, and Consumer Reports ranks them in their top ten for reliability.
This article is about old 5-10 year old used cars. As it says…
This article is about old 5-10 year old used cars. As it says…
They aren’t, as the article (which is about 5-10 year old models) says:
December 15, 2025 at 7:44 PM
They aren’t, as the article (which is about 5-10 year old models) says:
Important context from the article, which is about 5-10 year old models:
December 15, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Important context from the article, which is about 5-10 year old models:
Every time I read about OpenAI saying the 5.1 and 5.2 chat models (the ones they basically say not to use) can do “light reasoning” I think of this:
December 13, 2025 at 6:51 AM
Every time I read about OpenAI saying the 5.1 and 5.2 chat models (the ones they basically say not to use) can do “light reasoning” I think of this:
You will be visited by three spirits.
December 10, 2025 at 4:42 AM
You will be visited by three spirits.
That exchange started with this reply from her to a thread she wasn’t previously part of.
Her first statement is simply wrong. Her second is a non-sequitur and a straw man argument.
From there l tried to engage earnestly in a productive conversation, but she proved unwilling to do that.
Her first statement is simply wrong. Her second is a non-sequitur and a straw man argument.
From there l tried to engage earnestly in a productive conversation, but she proved unwilling to do that.
December 5, 2025 at 6:04 PM
That exchange started with this reply from her to a thread she wasn’t previously part of.
Her first statement is simply wrong. Her second is a non-sequitur and a straw man argument.
From there l tried to engage earnestly in a productive conversation, but she proved unwilling to do that.
Her first statement is simply wrong. Her second is a non-sequitur and a straw man argument.
From there l tried to engage earnestly in a productive conversation, but she proved unwilling to do that.
There’s no language model involved here (indeed, that would be the way to fix this).
It’s a simple rule-based suggestion they have. It doesn’t matter what topic you put there.
This is the Google Docs mobile app:
It’s a simple rule-based suggestion they have. It doesn’t matter what topic you put there.
This is the Google Docs mobile app:
October 27, 2025 at 6:53 PM
There’s no language model involved here (indeed, that would be the way to fix this).
It’s a simple rule-based suggestion they have. It doesn’t matter what topic you put there.
This is the Google Docs mobile app:
It’s a simple rule-based suggestion they have. It doesn’t matter what topic you put there.
This is the Google Docs mobile app:
Google Docs appears to make this suggestion for any use of this construction.
October 27, 2025 at 6:51 PM
Google Docs appears to make this suggestion for any use of this construction.
Well, for one thing, it doesn’t fit the relevant definition of the word.
Is incarceration harmful? Sure, but that’s true of any penalty.
Is incarceration harmful? Sure, but that’s true of any penalty.
September 28, 2025 at 7:29 PM
Well, for one thing, it doesn’t fit the relevant definition of the word.
Is incarceration harmful? Sure, but that’s true of any penalty.
Is incarceration harmful? Sure, but that’s true of any penalty.
Oh no, I did. Why did you circle the thing he said that isn’t true, and is totally different from what you asserted above?
And in case you think there was any ambiguity, he doubled down on it in multiple forks of the thread.
And in case you think there was any ambiguity, he doubled down on it in multiple forks of the thread.
July 13, 2025 at 4:18 PM
Oh no, I did. Why did you circle the thing he said that isn’t true, and is totally different from what you asserted above?
And in case you think there was any ambiguity, he doubled down on it in multiple forks of the thread.
And in case you think there was any ambiguity, he doubled down on it in multiple forks of the thread.
You understand this is saying almost verbatim exactly what I’ve been saying, and firstly refutes what the OP is claiming. Right? Like, you did read it before replying, right?
Because it kind of seems like you didn’t?
Because it kind of seems like you didn’t?
July 12, 2025 at 7:52 PM
You understand this is saying almost verbatim exactly what I’ve been saying, and firstly refutes what the OP is claiming. Right? Like, you did read it before replying, right?
Because it kind of seems like you didn’t?
Because it kind of seems like you didn’t?
What? No, that’s not true at all. He said he has no evidence.
Race isn’t a factor here and I didn’t even know his race when I responded. You’re trying to justify lying.
Race isn’t a factor here and I didn’t even know his race when I responded. You’re trying to justify lying.
July 12, 2025 at 7:06 PM
What? No, that’s not true at all. He said he has no evidence.
Race isn’t a factor here and I didn’t even know his race when I responded. You’re trying to justify lying.
Race isn’t a factor here and I didn’t even know his race when I responded. You’re trying to justify lying.
I’m not the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He’s admitted he has none.
July 12, 2025 at 6:10 PM
I’m not the one making the claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He’s admitted he has none.
When asked for evidence, he admits he has none.
This is the same kind of answer you get from election deniers.
This is the same kind of answer you get from election deniers.
July 12, 2025 at 6:07 PM
When asked for evidence, he admits he has none.
This is the same kind of answer you get from election deniers.
This is the same kind of answer you get from election deniers.
If you think they’re lying, find evidence.
Without evidence, you’re just making things up. The OP admits he has no evidence.
Without evidence, you’re just making things up. The OP admits he has no evidence.
July 12, 2025 at 5:53 PM
If you think they’re lying, find evidence.
Without evidence, you’re just making things up. The OP admits he has no evidence.
Without evidence, you’re just making things up. The OP admits he has no evidence.
I haven’t said anything that is wrong.
Jay made a false claim and refuses to provide evidence for it. Period.
Jay made a false claim and refuses to provide evidence for it. Period.
July 12, 2025 at 5:52 PM
I haven’t said anything that is wrong.
Jay made a false claim and refuses to provide evidence for it. Period.
Jay made a false claim and refuses to provide evidence for it. Period.
I am certain that no one has provided any evidence of Waymo violating their privacy policy and public statements that they do not share information with law enforcement unless compelled to do so by a court order.
The OP admits he has no evidence to support his baseless claim:
The OP admits he has no evidence to support his baseless claim:
July 12, 2025 at 5:50 PM
I am certain that no one has provided any evidence of Waymo violating their privacy policy and public statements that they do not share information with law enforcement unless compelled to do so by a court order.
The OP admits he has no evidence to support his baseless claim:
The OP admits he has no evidence to support his baseless claim:
It isn’t “well said”.
You’re defending the exact same behavior as election deniers or the people who say COVID was a hoax.
I haven’t been “called out” on anything. I am the one doing the calling out.
You should be asking for evidence, not defending the lack of it.
You’re defending the exact same behavior as election deniers or the people who say COVID was a hoax.
I haven’t been “called out” on anything. I am the one doing the calling out.
You should be asking for evidence, not defending the lack of it.
July 12, 2025 at 5:48 PM
It isn’t “well said”.
You’re defending the exact same behavior as election deniers or the people who say COVID was a hoax.
I haven’t been “called out” on anything. I am the one doing the calling out.
You should be asking for evidence, not defending the lack of it.
You’re defending the exact same behavior as election deniers or the people who say COVID was a hoax.
I haven’t been “called out” on anything. I am the one doing the calling out.
You should be asking for evidence, not defending the lack of it.
This person has no expertise on this subject matter, and *admitted* they have no evidence to back up the claim.
July 12, 2025 at 5:36 PM
This person has no expertise on this subject matter, and *admitted* they have no evidence to back up the claim.
First of all, the headline misrepresents what he said, which you can see in the article.
Second, he does not say that using copyrighted material for training constitutes theft. That is a lie you keep repeating, but he never said it.
Second, he does not say that using copyrighted material for training constitutes theft. That is a lie you keep repeating, but he never said it.
May 26, 2025 at 11:13 PM
First of all, the headline misrepresents what he said, which you can see in the article.
Second, he does not say that using copyrighted material for training constitutes theft. That is a lie you keep repeating, but he never said it.
Second, he does not say that using copyrighted material for training constitutes theft. That is a lie you keep repeating, but he never said it.
It’s explicit in at least some copyright laws, and has been upheld in a variety of court cases.
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/L...
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/L...
May 26, 2025 at 10:21 PM
It’s explicit in at least some copyright laws, and has been upheld in a variety of court cases.
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/L...
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/L...