The moon is fake! The woke commie Dims turned the rigged puck-lamp too high!

burn down institutions that actually work; they are too stupid to understand how they work.

Khrushchev would love that our government is full of people who disagree with the principle of Chesterton's Fence. It's appalling that "conservatives" have become so far to the left of "The Left."

Vote conservative: vote Democrat.

I have to admit, when I first heard Trump going on about yet another web site, I thought "who cares?" and ignored the rest of it.

The truth is though? Government web sites are notoriously horrible to navigate. The general public usually wants to do one specific thing that can take a whole lot of searching on the relevant department's own site -- if they even go to the correct one to begin with.

A one-stop AI powered "index" would add some value, IF it was done correctly. I have little faith it will be, but I'm not so opposed to the idea itself.

What they really said is they saw what they estimated to be about a 10% decrease in ability to see faint stars in the night-time skies each year from 2011 through 2022. But this article was written back in 2023 ... three years ago. So why is it "news" on Slashdot right now? And more importantly, is there any follow-up research showing this 10% annual reduction in darkness is continuing?

It stands to reason that as we improve night-time lighting in cities and towns on our roads, this would be a trend. But it also stands to reason that 10% decreases in darkness at night will cease. I would imagine much of what they observed was due to the near wholesale swapping of inefficient incandescent or mercury vapor lighting with brighter, more "white" LED lighting. I don't think there's any real trend of adding more and more lighting?

There's nothing wrong with knowing your own limitations and acting accordingly. Had Mr. Zuckerberg had that sort of self-knowledge, he might have avoided lighting 80-billion-with-a-b dollars on fire and renaming his social media company after a technology that nobody wanted.

What's next? If we accept this, then the next thing will be that public officials won't be allowed to sell Amway/Herbalife, heroin, or fake patents? This is viciously partisan, clearly intended to keep a certain major political party from running for office.

That is true, but it's a little more complicated than that.

The average driver is pretty good, 99.9% of the time. The other 0.1% of the time, they are tired, or angry, or momentarily distracted, or just looking the other direction from where they need to be looking under those particular circumstances. It's those occasional blips of inattention that cause lead to most accidents occurring.

They are kissing up to Donny by letting him rename everything he farts on.

Yes, I agree. The problem with thinking "this bug seems harmless, because I can't imagine how anyone could exploit it" is in the "I can't imagine" part; my imagination is limited to what is covered by my mental model of how computers work, but an attackers' ingenuity is not.

In particular, the C/C++ optimizer is a devious beast, and will exploit any opportunity to make the code more efficient, even if that means doing things that are wildly unintuitive to a naive human reader -- and it sees any instance of undefined behavior as an opportunity to exploit.

Execute it for spying on gov't.

(C) is the only one of those the AI companies are really concerned about -- they want to stave off model collapse for as long as possible. The problem is that AI generates so much content that the ratio of AI-generated data to human-generated data keeps rising, and sooner or later there simply won't be much human-generated data left to anything to consume. At that point they'll either have to figure out to ingest AI-generated content without causing degradation, or they'll have to accept that AIs have gotten as smart as they will ever get, and it's all downhill from there.

People are getting angry about officers mis-using Flock to stalk or spy on ex's and other women they meet. But the bigger problem is the law enforcement culture itself. This has been going on for decades now, with very little real effort to change things. It's pretty much common knowledge that police have one of the higher rates of divorce and relationship issues. It's the type of job where people wear the uniform and are given some power over the general public, with the assertion that they're only there to "protect and serve" you. Women are generally attracted to both men in uniform and men who want to act as a protector.

Combine that with the job of a police officer involving constant interaction with random people in public, and you have a perfect storm to tempt a cop into cheating on a significant other or to take advantage of their position to stalk one of them.

IMO, this is called "being human" ... In any large enough group of people, you'd have a percentage who'd justify this type of behavior as worth the risk when it's about sex/relationships. But the law enforcement culture is more about "brother looking out for brother". The police think they're part of a special group who are generally above the "lesser" laws that interfere with what they feel needs to be done. I've watched plenty of them exceed posted speed limits when they aren't running traffic enforcement themselves. I've seen them turn on the lights and sirens briefly, to get through traffic so they're not late for lunch with someone. So sure, they'd do a few plate lookups to track people they know, if they've got some personal excuse to do it. More needs to be done to audit and monitor police behavior and discipline them when they're in the wrong. Saying "it's a tough job" or "it's risky vs what they're paid" or anything like that is no justification.

I only know this as an anecdote (so would be happy if someone "in the know" can clarify more about it). But a buddy of mine was upset when he saw an AT&T worker wandering around his back yard, a while back. The guy was clearly trying to mark an area to dig, to put fiber in. My friend was mad not simply for the guy trespassing on his property, but specifically because he had a plan to pour a lot of concrete back there to expand a small back patio. He didn't want a situation where a fiber connection ran under his back patio.

He caught up to the worker and questioned him, and was told they were trying to find the shortest and most cost-effective way to extend fiber to his neighborhood, and not going through his yard would create a big hassle for them, having to take a long path around. The worker ultimately said he understood my friend's concerns and promised he'd call a supervisor to discuss it. But he added that "AT&T always has the legal right to run cables through private residential property thanks to Federal laws established back when all they did was run copper wire for telephone services".

Use them?! First: why would I want to be locked into Meta's proprietary APIs? And second: it doesn't even include a near-infrared swimsuits mode. I can't believe they omitted such a basic feature. (Zuck, you call these perv glasses!?!)

Besides, from a style perspective, they just aren't nearly gargoylie enough. Whatever perv glasses I buy will have erect antenna(s) (not integrated into the frame), much larger aperture cameras for astronomy, and lots of blinkenlights (including a cool-looking Locutus-style laser). It doesn't surprise me at all, that the more style-conscious sex isn't buying them.

Meta's specific product is ridiculous. But I nevertheless defend the overall tech.

its advocates have already gotten so much of what they could have possibly hoped for

Except the one thing that actually matters: being able to really use it. I still (in 2026!) can't use Bitcoin to pay for things at my local grocery store, car mechanic, or even Amazon.

Bitcoin didn't take off. Unless it suddenly gets more popular by a few orders of magnitude, it remains a useless dead end.