usrusr

Not when they are properly used as a fossil fuel source. As a fossil fuel source that just happened to also make itself useful in other ways on the voyage from mine to smokestack. As long as we still burn coal for electricity and/or heat it's just stupid to bury plastics (or, worse, let it slowly decay unburied)

Misleading title: they are using eminent domain to seize land for power lines to data centers. (emphasis mine)

This is still quite debatable, but so much less so than the implied accusation that they would somehow sell out their privileges as subcontractors for the data centers themselves.

So how many minutes of that playbook do you suppose the annual budget of Gopro would be able to pay for?

I'm not a friend of nationalism, but I believe that it's a trade-off: of you want to be open to immigration, of the kind that pulls in newcomers, inviting them to become a part of the place they move to, instead of remaining outsiders, you have to give them plenty of opportunity to identify with their new home. Of course these days, we see the American flag used a lot in ways completely opposite to this, but that does not change the great progressive value national symbols could provide.

I read about this so often, yet it's a problem I just never encountered. If I need super high bandwidth like connecting a display, I pick one of those annoyingly unlflexible fat cables. Easy. They even tend to feature the TB4 flash icon. Surely I would not expect any of the light and nimble ones to do that trick. When I need strong PD, it's also either one of those or one of the far more flexible but still quite thick braided ones. Often they have some hinge gimmick connector to prevent any hope for bandwidth one might be tempted to have. All other cables, I expect nothing but legacy USB. Yeah, and some of those won't do data at all (curiosly those are never the lightest cables in my stable, the lightest ones tend to do the legacy USB "gear not, some bits will eventually get through!" just fine)

Yeah, I guess in these days of hardware not getting completely outdated even after half a decade, it might well make sense to spend chip area on specialist units that are shut down almost the entire time.

In the old days, when it was all about squeezing maximum performance from a given chip area budget you'd prefer using those transistors for some improvement of the general purpose parts, no matter how marginal. But now it's the thermal envelope, or power consumption of you prefer looking at it from that angle, and even slightly esoteric special purpose units can start making sense.

Will the workloads exist? As in not going straight to something at least as dedicated as the Strix Halo CPU/GPU combo (with air quotes around the G)? Or the Apple max? Somehow I don't picture this as an attempt to make a full AI rig that just happens to be x86 in the housekeeping parts but just something that will make CPU inference a little less bad. In that case it would at best be a hedge against some low requirements use case becoming more important than expected, yet another unused spec sheet checkbox engineering marvel otherwise.

Yeah, I'd expect this approach to be almost universal, with the caveat that of the few who don't, many still don't get bitten.

But it turns out even in the container, there are footguns that have occasionally made the news by being fired: few projects don't have any external resources and when credentials with any form of write access happen to make it into the container (even if it's just a session cookie) agents might jump at the opportunity.

Is that built in protection really a filter, on code level, that sits between the LLM session and the shell or is it just some pleading in the bootstrap prompt? "Pretty please don't do xyz this is important!!!11"?

The latter can seem to be as good as the former for any amount of time. No outside observation can really prove reliability, only the negative result ("it does occasionally break the rules we expect") would be proof. So it's difficult to trust any claims that it's the former.

And even if it does have some of the former, chances are that the protection you experience is only partially provided on code level, while an unknown amount is still just bootstrap prompting that just works until does not.

In ca 1995 fiction, the upsell was human ractors occasionally coming in, temporarily substituting AI on heiress class instances. Sounds pretty much spot on for one of those coveted post AI jobs...

Is it truly a 2026 car though, if it does not come with an ungodly amount of attention beep nagware that cannot be permanently disabled?

Not sure if accidentally is the correct term, given the anti-intellectual platform

One is an ad medium, the other isn't.

But it really depends not only on the presentation theme but also on the data set itself and that varies by region. I'm sure that there are still places where the sources Google is buying are better than whatever is on OSM, just like there are regions where OSM is just so much more detailed than everybody else. And yet others, where OSM is generously fed by an entity that also supplies Google and all the others because they are not doing it for the map, they are doing it for the place.

None, in the months (sometimes years) it spends switched off (off, not standby) between print jobs. It's a quarter of a century old and I can still get replacement cartridges when I need them.

I very much agree, the status quo is not sustainable. But I really don't believe that the solution is trying to one-up China in whatever they are doing, or the USA, for that matter.

It might be a minor contributor, but it sure isn't the reason.

If you do do much admire economic success through suffering, can I assume that you have relocated to China? (mainland) Because they sure know a thing or two about that...

Or in other words: there's a big difference between public domain and copyleft and it looks like whoever came up with the asbestos analogy was underestimating that difference.

Needs a little more precision: not "those with an equity stake": those with a disproportionally large equity stake.

Otherwise it's just an opener for the old excuse of "they might be ruining your life, but it's all good, it's also your pension fund, little man, that's profiting from your life getting ruined, you should celebrate them!"

"Our models are so good they are banned by the government"

I don't see any way how releasing an incrementally better model could get even close to the positive PR. For every Mythos token not sold because of this they'll sell dozens of Fable, Opus and so on. Perhaps the ban did not origin at Anthropic, as a PR stunt, but genuinely at some government desk. Entirely possible. But Anthropic would be foolish to not pick up that ball and drag it out a little.

The quote is not "one", it's "The one".

I call them ransom futures. But given how many of the ransom situations that are started with "give us N amount of crypto X!" I suspect being resolved entirely in conventional money, through some subcontractor chain of decreasingly white-hattish "security consultancies" that somehow make the problem go away (by knowing someone who will make the problem go away for money), your take is probably the more accurate one.

Yeah, there are clavicle fractures that clearly don't need any surgery, but when in doubt, always slap on some titanium. Just try to get rid of the plate before the next fracture opportunity, because then you'll get an AC joint separation instead of a fracture and that stuff won't grow back. Ask me how I know, I had surgery to swap a fracture plate for an AC plate (those AC plates really, really suck)

The key service performed by a cycling helmet is not turning a death situation into a permanently maimed situation (they do that, but that's a very rare occurrence), it's turning a life changing injury situation into a situation of some fractured bones that will be almost forgotten two months later. The life and death part is overrated.

I guess one reason people are so focused on that is because it's easy to quantify.

Not only easier finding call sites than finding copies, also more intuitive to start looking. "Which callers will be affected by the change?" is the most natural question to ask. "Which places should have this same change applied?", not so much.

Why pretend? "private" on value types just means nothing to see here except when you happen to be one of the functions conveniently namespaced with the struct.

But I'd say that GP's complaint about inequality leaking makes no sense anyways, because what could be more unequal than different implementation, or different internal state implying different behavior down the line? The public subset isn't some arbitrary interface that could have different implementations. And even then, "equals under interface I1" would have to be considered a very special type of "equality", not the general case.

Value types are a concept very far away from the "magic black box organism" school of OOP thinking. It's not a novel way of doing classic OOP (does anyone still do that?), it's a way for a language born in OOP ideology get one step further into the post-OOP world.

Or subsidies from hopeful investors sweet-talked into not understanding the commodity nature of the business they are investing in. But that does not change much about the general assessment.

Chances are the typical story goes founders start fully believing that they would succeed with their own innovation but slip down a gradient towards commodity provider without really noticing themselves.

I had similar thoughts, but regarding fiction: I imagine that there must be quite a corpus of Tom Clancy style stuff indulging in "military gear porn" up to and including the use of tactical nukes, but fiction involving strategic nuclear exchange tends to be about what comes after.

I believe that it's more nuanced than that (this is from the context of German regulations):

In the old days, reflectors and diffractors were rather crude and light distribution wasn't even at all. Regulation was setting a light intensity limit for the arc above the cutoff, assuming that the brightest spots would be just that, unintended brightness outliers. And when those would comply with the limit, the typical brightness hitting the eyes of oncoming traffic would be much lower.

Now reflector design is SO much better manufacturers striving to make their buyers happy can make lights pushing out photons exactly at that old regulatory limit over the entire cutoff area, and with a precise jump where the cuttoff stops. That's awesome for the person behind the wheel ("best lights I ever had!"), technically within the old limits and a terribly blinding for everybody else.

Looks very much like the only chance of that ever happening now is if someone established a separate league that only allows naturally conceived horses.