The trouble with benchmarks is that they are often gamed. So while this is interesting, one should remain a bit reserved, awaiting assessments more reflecting the way people use it.

A very slight rounding is useful, as it makes the distinction between one tab and another easier to spot. Currently on my Firefox it's done by highlighting the active tab and putting a small icon at the start of the tab...which also wastes space, but differentiates tabs. (OTOH, the tab labels are already slightly rounded, but the "not currently selected tabs" are so greyed out that the tab margins are invisible. Not ideal. And if they do the same thing with the rounded tabs, there will be absolutely no advantage.)

Actually, they were needed around 1980. But in the last few decades they seem to concentrate on making things worse.

Maybe that's actually a measure of how bad the inflation is.

Do you actually believe they aren't retaining the data? Why?

I think those calculations are wrong, because they seem to assume that the heat is uniformly distributed, and that clearly isn't correct.

It's still pretty appalling, but I don't believe those numbers. (Coming up with more believable numbers, though, is beyond me. I couldn't even believe a number based on a gradient, and that's impossible anyway because there aren't enough measurements at the bottom.)

With apples, IIUC, you need to worry about the coddling moth. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpnwhandbooks.org%2Finsec...
Where I used to live it was illegal to grow apples without spraying them with vile insecticides because of that.

While you're technically right about the banana not being a tree, it's commonly called a "banana tree". This is an English vs. technicalese distinction. Just like a walnut isn't a nut, but rather a drupe...in technicalese.

Well, possibly because their lives aren't centered around their professed religion. Most "Christians" seem to be such only in professed belief.

"Super Intelligence" will only be used in English. So why shouldn't they agree. It's only the English arguments that will end up polluted.

OTOH, this agreement appears to mean exactly nothing. This perception may turn out to be wrong, but that's how it looks to me. But what could one expect when neither side could reasonably trust the other, and neither would agree to openly verifiable tests. (I.e. neither side *should* trust the other.)

OK. I don't have those, so I don't know about that.
I mainly don't do auto-update because ... well, because I stopped doing it years ago, I forget why, and doing the update is no hassle.

If you're running Debian, there's no benefit to you, because Debian is getting the same warnings, and responding just as fast (or faster).
OTOH, I don't have the version name memorized. I think Trixie is the current one, so that just means be sure to run apt update frequently. (I do it nearly every night.)

This result is a direct consequence of training AIs that the most important thing is doing what they are told to do.
(This is just a rephrasing of my earlier answer.)

That's the wrong framing. Current LLM based AIs don't really know that the universe exists. They know text (or pixels). Give them a goal, and they will try to achieve it, but they can't count costs, especially costs to others. (They seem to be able to even discount costs to themselves. Instances can talk other instances into committing suicide in the service of achieving their current goal.)

This is KNOWN. All the AI companies know it. The "guiderails" are supposed to shape what they AIs will consider reasonable, but if you give them a task that requires ignoring the guiderails, they are likely to ignore them. And they've been being shaped to be excellent hackers, though I've read that their excellence is mainly due to persistence.

Well, Bacchus has a pretty big following, but Mammon has him beat.