Cell was fabricated by IBM, so... No.

"because SSL makes it impossible to generate static content."

What SSL/TLS prevents is a caching proxy without doing any work. (Even that can be done, but it takes more steps.) You can deliver static content with encryption. If you are doing a lot of that, there are accelerators.

Have you seen this Supreme Court in action?

Both of these approaches have been used. Some vehicles have both things. For example a Sprinter T1N always has glow plugs, but a block heater is an option, but an Espar heater is actually more common! And when equipped, it comes with a timer, not just a knob controller like you would get with the cheapest install kit.

More hardcoded passwords and the like in the renewal processes where people have been doing them manually and don't know how to automate them correctly. These people should be outsourcing this...

You can't. You won't. You will outsource all of that to your web provider. Mine handles renewing my cert for me automatically. I could provide my own, but I don't have to. Instead, they handle getting it... from Let's Encrypt. I will not even notice this change, because they will continue to do so.

I have done my own self-signed certs and whatnot, I have installed certs from Verisign professionally yada yada, but there's no reason for me to do anything other than this for my vanity site. But there's really no good reason for most companies which can't afford to have an IT staff to do anything else either. They are not dependent on their website to do business.

I see them ditching their consumer line, since it's too hard to differentiate there now, and focusing on pro equipment. Their camera line is very successful.

Ahem

And you pulled that lie right out of your ass, correct?

No, neither OpenAI nor Anthropic are anywhere near "breaking even". And they will never get there.

Indeed. And they will also find out that running your own specialized models with your own safeguards (!) and result verification outside of the LLM is the only good way to get result quality that actually can (maybe) meet reasonable engineering and other standards. General LLMs are a cool stunt, but a really bad idea if you do real work.

It can't, though, and for two reasons. One, a person is required to check off on the data. Two, LLMs don't faithfully represent data. They ingest it as tokens and then what they crap out is influenced by random numbers produced internally as part of the token selection process. That means a person cannot certify that the data was faithfully reproduced without checking literally every value, because that's simply not how LLMs work.

You can potentially address this with a hybrid approach, where the LLM uses a tool to collect and manipulate the data, but this is shifting the problem to whether the LLM used the tool correctly. It might be more obvious when it doesn't, though, so it might still be a win.

What LLMs seem best at when it comes to text processing, and they are still not infallible, is summarization. But you can't trust its negatives, so it's only useful for identifying other possible positives. That's not worthless, it can help you catch things, but you can't trust it to do the parts you'd most want it to do.

As soon as the data is there, it will be abused. The only reliable way to prevent that abuse is to not collect the data in the first place.

See also the reasoning behind the respective parts of the GDPR.

I rarely have to adjust any options for a game to play correctly any more. Usually the internal benchmark does an acceptable job of choosing settings. Of late even pretty rinky-dink games have even been correctly figuring out that I want vsync (I have a 60 fps display, of course I do) which is nice, but they also seem to correctly pick the performance settings. I imagine that this is something that Unity and UE have finally figured out for them.

This has a really obvious answer which has been thoroughly explored here but I would like to explore why that answer is bad even though it's true, and pointing out it's true is not bad.

First some postulates:
Government should not be allowed to contract anyone to manage our data.
Government should not hire contractors to work on systems which will be used to manage our data.
Government should never be sending our data out to anyone else or allowing it to be stored on systems not under their control.

Obviously I realize that this is status quo stuff, it's more common than not in fact. Only legacy and defense systems are still held and run by feds and states, everything else is generally outsourced to a contractor (Accenture, Deloitte...) and is also probably running in the cloud — specifically on AWS, Azure, or Oracle.

But these things should never happen specifically because they are each individually poisonous to privacy, let alone all three together. All of this software should be developed in-house like it used to be. Government outsources software development and management so that it can do things it's not allowed to do otherwise, not because it's the only way to do it. It allows them, perhaps most importantly, to hand our data to others. Huge amounts of our PII is being processed not just on cloud instances provided by these players, but actually through their services (e.g. Amazon Transcribe) which are AI-based* and also mean that they actually process all of the data on our behalf and are in a unique and ideal position to harvest it.

* Amazon Transcribe used to support phonetic substitutions but now it doesn't, which I take to mean that they've just handed the whole job purely to a LLM which does it in one stage... you hope.

Don't we all! Hard drives, RAM, *and* GPUs, I'm in the market for it all.

I also want to buy silver-tin alloy for casting, and hey, what do you know, silver and tin are also both at astronomical prices due to in no small part the AI boom.

At one point you have to just stop waiting. Prices could start falling tomorrow, but then again, that could have been said at any point for the past several years.