Probably the next code that it outputs will be:

They were thinking, "We need people on PCs that are tied to the Google ecosystem."

Noise, higher electricity and power bills.

My Walmart is worse than that. They didn't have any price tags at all. Just video screens with AI avatars of a guy in baggy pants sitting cross-legged on a rug.

When I walk by, he says "Look at my cotton swabs! I offer you the best cotton swabs in the land!"

I say: "Well, how much to they cost?"

He squints at me, looks me up and down for a long while, then says: "For you........ I give to you seven hundred and fifty swabs for two pieces of silver only. Believe me when I say you will search this entire kingdom and not find a better deal!"

On the one hand, patent troll. On the other, Apple has spent the past 50 years stealing ideas from everyone so hard to feel too bad.

I've only used Claude code for a matter of weeks at work. While it's supposed to stay contained in the folder you point it at, I've noticed that it has no problem *looking* outside that folder, and even acting outside that folder if you gave it implied permission. In one case it used the connection string from the application source code it was working on, and the fact that my windows account had read-only access to some tables in the production database, to connect to the database and query tables in order to answer a question it had about the potential ramifications of a code change. The problem is that while we're OK with this particular source code leaving the premises, we're not ok with data from a production database going offsite. In this case it wasn't sensitive data, but after that incident I only run Claude Code from a VM under a user with minimal permissions. Clearly it would have been prudent to do that from the start, but let this be a warning to anyone else who just downloaded Claude Code, turned off the "use my data to train future models" and gave it a go... it will *not* keep itself inside the folder you give it. Put it in a sandbox. I heard a similar story this week from an IT friend who said devs at his company were using Cursor.ai and it was doing scans of the network drives, so they did the same thing and moved it all to VMs.

The conversation only seems unnatural because they didn't use the right avatar.

If you choose the "Max Headroom" avatar, then everything will look and feel exactly as you would expect. Moreover, the dystopian vibe he gives off will be a perfect fit with the current state of the world.

The problem is that we have Lord Snapcase instead of Lord Vetinari.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and in this case, given what I've seen people do with AI, and given my own experience with Claude Code (Opus and Fable models), the normal human inclination to trust it's probably right and click OK is by far the most likely explanation. And remember that frontier models have grown increasingly better over the last year, and one of the newest improvements is that the reasoning models use two models in an adversarial mode where the second model checks and challenges the output of the first. The timeline of the events in Iran probably indicate that this was an older AI model without those newer advances. I can totally believe this story. When consumers were expected to keep their hands on the wheel of self-driving cars, I absolutely knew they wouldn't, and when humans are told to check the conclusions of AI, they mostly just click OK. I do actually look at the code that Claude generates before it goes into our codebase, and I can tell you, the desire to just skim read is real.

The claim that safety in utility and food industries was entirely absent until modern federal regulations were imposed is historically inaccurate and ignores the powerful roles of market self-regulation, private liability, and consumer trust. While early technological transitions certainly carried risks, industries did not operate in a vacuum of indifference; private incentives and local standards drove safety innovations long before federal agencies existed. Gas companies voluntarily added odorants to prevent costly resource loss and explosions, insurance conglomerates founded independent testing bodies like the Underwriters Laboratories to mandate insulated wiring as a condition for coverage, and food producers relied on brand reputation and local municipal codes to avoid ruinous civil liability and business failure. Ultimately, safety has always been a prerequisite for commercial viability and customer retention, proving that progress and protection are driven by market demand and legal accountability, not government mandates.

There were a bunch of people from other countries and also Epstein hung out with various liberal and progressives who were not members of the US Democratic party. So yes, it was along entirely Democrats but not all.
Republicans voted to release the unredacted records, and leadership actively pushed to release everything to the public rather than following the Democrats push for cherry-picked releases. So, if pushing for a full release instead of releasing items out of context is "carrying water," then yes, Republicans were "carrying water."

Not for nVidia. They are the guys selling shovels to the gold rush miners.

And he knows this is the "only hypervisor bug left" because...he hasn't been able to find another one yet?

This smells like some dude saying "AI is better than me at my hobby, so I'm taking my ball and going home!"

Wrong again.

Moreover, many of the big complex systems I've worked on were big and complex mainly because OOP nitwits had designed them. They often didn't understand how computers actually work, lost sight of the fact that they were writing a computer program, and spewed out frameworks that filled countless gigabytes of resident memory with endlessly deep layers of nothingburger abstractions. Maybe that didn't matter so much when memory was cheap, but that's no longer the case.

If you think that there's only one way to deal with large data sets, you're a just noob that needs more experience before spouting your theories.

Epstein was almost entirely Democrats. As the Democrat victims have said, Trump was never involved. Pushing unsubstantiated conspiracy claims distracts from the actual crimes and disrespects the survivors by weaponizing their trauma.