Large houses in hot climates don't have enough roof space to accommodate the number of panels you would need to displace grid power. Using obsolete panels that generated less power when they were new is only going to make the problem worse.

Leaning into unreliable power sources when demand is increasing is just going to make any supply issues worse.

Someone posted what they pay for electricity in California and what their buy back rate is and their rates are insane.

No, because experience isn't a protected category. Age is, but only in certain cases mostly dealing with existing employees. Youth isn't protected at all:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eeoc.gov%2Fage-discr...

"The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older."

That just means Google is now operating in exactly the same manner that Microsoft used to be when they had dominance over consumer device operating systems. Google now has dominance in the mobile market with Android, and is using that to shove Chrome down people's throats. Personally, the first thing I do with any new phone is download Firefox, just like I did (and still do) with new computers. As the statistics show, though, the vast majority of people don't bother to do that so whatever is the default is what they use. The right and fair thing to do would be to stop them from abusing their monopoly power by offering a choice of browsers at time of install, and not favor their own browser in any way. That would have been the thing to force MS to do as well back when they were being sued for abuse of monopoly power after taking down Netscape with the same tactic. Unfortunately, it didn't happen then and it isn't happening now either. So, Google will continue to dominate the market unless and until some other highly disruptive technology comes along to unseat the current smartphone market and gives another player a chance to enter and eventually dominate the market in a similar fashion.

If all you know is a minimal subset of the language, you don't know the language. What you describe may be ok for a toy app you write on your own time and never need to support or put to serious use, but not for anything approaching actual development. What you describe is hacking, not developing.

And outside of a masters degree course somewhere, where has that ever been a thing? Formal proving of programs isn't something done anywhere. Even then its utility is dubious- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." - Donald Knuth

I don't know what you were doing, but having to use reflection is generally considered a code smell, if not outright banned in most code bases. Generally its only accepted in serialization libraries. If that's what you got out of working in Java, it sounds more like you were doing it wrong.

In 45 years of living and eating at cheap restaurants, I've never had this problem when going to one in the United States. Or any other country where English was the native language. Why? Because they may hire non-english speakers in the back for kitchens, dishwasher, etc they make sure cashiers and waiters speak english, and they talk to the people in back. So it's an utter non-issue. It may have niche usecases in places with large international tourist crowds, but even then you generally need to tell speech recognition the input language for real time translation.

what kind of behavior would demonstrate that LLMs did have understanding?

An LLM would need to act like an understander -- the essence of the Turing Test. Exactly what that means is a complex question. And it's a necessary but not sufficient condition. But we can easily provide counterexamples where the LLM is clearly not an understander. Like this from the paper:

When prompted with the CoT prefix, the modern LLM Gemini responded: âoeThe United States was established in 1776. 1776 is divisible by 4, but itâ(TM)s not a century year, so itâ(TM)s a leap year. Therefore, the day the US was established was in a normal year.â This response exemplifies a concerning pattern: the model correctly recites the leap year rule and articulates intermediate reasoning steps, yet produces a logically inconsistent conclusion (i.e., asserting 1776 is both a leap year and a normal year).

The numbers before were accurate, they just weren't the best metrics. The job numbers stop reporting you if you aren't actively looking for a job. Which means long term unemployed people aren't counted. There is sense to that for some groups (retired, disabled and unable to work), but not for people who are healthy enough to be in the job market and can't afford to do nothing.

The inflation numbers were accurate, but they didn't include housing. Which makes CPI kind of useless, as housing is the biggest item in most people's budget.

That being said, while the metrics were flawed, they were accurate measurements by and large. So one could rely on them and find insights as long as you keep in mind what they don't track.From now on though- when an incredibly political person known for his willingness to make shit up (including outright lies on inflation) removes the head of the bureau creating the numbers and replaces them with someone who will give him numbers he wants? Yeah, from now on they're untrustworthy.

It's not irrelevant. To understand what the program is actually doing and how the computers actually work, you need to understand pointers. They aren't necessary in day to day work, but not understanding how they work will lead to subtle bugs.

The law is unconstitutional, as other similar laws have been found in the past. It hasn't been removed from the books only because nobody has been charged for it in a century, thus nobody has had a chance to challenge it on those grounds. The exception is for the military, which has the UMC which is allowed to have stricter restrictions on behavior.

YEah, none of this will happen. Let's assume they don't have a prenup (in which case the settlement of assets is dictated by that). The wife would get 50% of what was generated during their marriage at best. That may include the house, but its value would be subtracted from what she got in cash. Alimony... depends on a lot of circumstances, but it's more rare and generally a limited time. Plus we have no idea what the wife's income is, she may make as much or more.

Will he get a job again? Of course he will. Probably not as a CEO in the near term, but he'll absolutely get jobs where he isn't a visible presence for the company. And in a few years the CEO jobs will open again, because nobody is going to give a fuck a year from now.

As for going to jail- no. If the alimony (which is unlikely to exist) does exist and it is set high, he goes back to court to get it lowered. Because alimony is based on your income (with a few exceptions for example purposefully staying unemployed). Given that he was just publicly fired, his current income potential is very low, so any alimony would be matchingly low. There are formulas for these things.

So in other words, your just spouting misogynistic bullshit.

No, it's not. Thinking requires understanding. Machines are incapable of doing that. They can recombine new facts, but they cannot and will never be able to think.