The U.S. should just open up all immigration from China. Better having them here than hitting the beaches of Taiwan.

I thought it was US waste being our team who is monitoring it.

Exactly. That's all I've been doing lately. New Project, Start feeding Claude Code the notes. Build up the memory. Spec time comes, use him as a rubber duck, walking thru the whole process, we document everything first. I get a MD file, convert to a docx for the users, and submit. It's a good starting point, my ideas + boiler plate stuff from Claude. I could just give it to him to code out as well at this point, but I still need to go thru a review, and then there are contractors that need work....

So far this process has worked pretty well with me. There's still design in there. Like I'm the director telling the actors what we want, and then the giving the control over to them to interpret. What is nice though is I can ask if something is possible to do, and Claude can usually find out. It gives me starting options at least.

Just waiting for Rust#

Way more than cheaper rides.
* App to summon
* Automatic driver mapping to pickup
* Predictable arrival for pickup
* Predictable arrival for drop off
* No BS routing and you knew the cost before pickup/dropoff.

Back in the day I called for cabs ahead of time and had them fail to show up 25% of the time. I've never lived in a dangerous area, so that wasn't it. They just were not reliable or predictable. Uber saw a huge opening for a service and they took it. They also saw a huge opportunity for destroying the existing market solution in an anti-competitive and illegal way and took that, too - banking on the notion that government would not act fast enough to stop them. And they were right.

And because cars are a certain size. Making it half the size for just one person would be nearly as expensive and would be worse for taxi'ing 2 people (which are still a reasonable number of fares).

Account closed.
I created my twitter account when the service was practically new and only used it a handful of times - so I might not be the target audience. Even so, I miss the original idea of it.

Oh, no. I have it on good authority that computer vision is about to exceed human performance.

Wait - what year is it, again? :-p

Too right they are experts in "misinformation"
Heres 10 examples of the nations least trusted broadcaster's (BBC) "Misinformation"

1. Question Time audience composition
Audience makeup on Question Time has drawn complaints from both directions for years — Conservative and Brexit-supporting critics say audiences skew liberal-left, even hiring actors to pose as members of the public to present a false narrative.

2. Diane Abbott / Fiona Bruce polling exchange (2019)
Abbott was corrected on-air over polling figures; the BBC later admitted its review found she'd been right to say other polls suggested Labour was either ahead or tied, and conceded it should have made that clear at the time.

3. Newsnight's Corbyn/Kremlin graphic (2018)
Newsnight placed Corbyn's image against Moscow's skyline during Salisbury poisoning coverage - his hat had been digitally altered to look more "Russian."

4. Laura Kuenssberg's "grim reading" postal vote claim (2019)
On the eve of the 2019 election, Kuenssberg's claim that postal votes looked bad for Labour drew roughly 15,000 complaints from viewers since in order to make such a statement regarding postal votes sugesting she must have had access to that data prior to the result.

5. 2019 general election coverage overall
The BBC reportedly received over 60,000 complaints about its election coverage, a sharp jump from 5,000 in 2015 and 7,000 in 2017, with complaints about anti-Corbyn bias.

6. Boris Johnson Question Time audience-laughter edit (2019)
The BBC edited a daytime news clip to remove audience laughter that followed a question to Johnson about honesty, prompting accusations of favorable editing.

7. Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone (2025)
An internal BBC review found the documentary breached editorial guidelines on accuracy by failing to disclose the child narrator was the son of a senior Hamas official. Ofcom went further, ruling the film was "materially misleading" and breached the Broadcasting Code.

8. Gaza: Doctors Under Attack ( 2025)
Running the other direction: the BBC declined to broadcast this Gaza documentary after members of the (separate, independent) production team made public comments accusing Israel of war crimes. BBC suppressed coverage rather telling the truth.

9. Iraq War coverage (2002–2003)
BBC facilitated government WMD claims (including the "45 minutes" assertion) with insufficient scrutiny in the run-up to war. Further more the government's dossier had been "sexed up," which triggered the Hutton Inquiry, the death of David Kelly, and the resignation of the Director-General and Chairman after Hutton found against the BBC's editorial processes. So the BBC was too credulous toward the government.

10. "False balance" on economic/austerity coverage
A frequently cited academic critique (Cardiff University media research, among others) argues BBC economics coverage in the early 2010s tended to frame deficit reduction as consensus common sense rather than a contested policy choice, disproportionately featuring City/financial-sector voices over dissenting economists.

Is gaslighting Germany. In that it fails to report on the same crackdown on free speech in the UK.
The Telegraph AKA Torygraph is therefore not a trusted source.

And that was before they started burning through AI Tokens.

Let it be known that our future is bleak - mitigation is not enough and world leaders are doing the opposite of what is needed.

That said we can always spaff a few million on a new report that tells us nothing we dont already know and results in no action being taken.

Arguably Zig isnt faster , rather Zig and Rust produce binaries of similar performance. However , Zig is the highest paid programming language...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblog.logrocket.com%2Fcom...

Imagine 10,000 clusters of 20 homes. Each cluster no closer than 5 miles to.. anything. And all of them behind some mountain or in some valley or somewhere else that's really inconvenient. AI tells me you can run copper 5 miles without a booster - so that's what they did - sometime last century when they ran power. Work was cheap, copper was cheap, and someone was running power so they piggybacked. Easy peasy.

You can't run modern stuff nearly that far - except for fiber. But then you're running fiber to 10,000 hubs and each will probably need some kind of a station to do processing and splitting and further wires. I don't suppose any of this is hard - it's just expensive. And for each of these 10,000 hubs you're going to do all this work for 20 customers that only want to pay $10/month because that's their deal. You will *never* recoup those costs.

So I get why they don't wanna. But that's the deal they get for monopoly power and right of way and all that.

This is not so much about dropping copper service as it is about dropping service. AT&T (or their predecessor) put in the copper and now they just want to drop those customers because they are expensive to maintain. I can't say I blame them - I would want to, too. The thing is they don't want to replace the copper with anything - they just want to ignore those folks.

The state would be more than happy if AT&T put in fiber and dropped copper. After all, they've secured tens of millions in California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) and Last Mile infrastructure grants

That's not what they signed up for when they were granted right of way and monopoly powers. They just want to weasel out of it.

I feel like I need to spell out the math.

300 * 1,000,000,000 = 300,000,000,000
300,000,000 * 5% = 15,000,000,000

That's all CA will get from the one time tax "from Apple". Just 15 Billion Dollars.