I own a tiny indie studio in Chicagoland and my peers own the some of the huge studios in Chicagoland.

Cinespace is dead right now. It has ONE show active. The other studios are so dead that they're secretly hosting bar mitzvahs and pickleball tournaments for $1500 a day just to pay property taxes.

My studio is surprisingly busy but I'm cheap and cater to non-union folks with otherwise full time jobs.

It's not well defined what he's defending against or what it looks like when an agent goes bad (or how to check their motivations, etc). This is a money grab, nothing more.

The show fell off a cliff with Jodie Whittaker and not at all because of her. The first three or so episodes I watched she put on a reasonably good performance. But the material they gave her to work with was just atrocious. Utter crap. Stuff they must've dug out of the very bottom of the "rejected ideas" bin.

The ensemble cast didn't work, like at all. I never cared for any of them even the tiniest bit. The Doctor, the most feared creature in the universe, a being able to rip reality apart and put it back together, someone who can start or end wars with a few words. The Doctor who literally said to the Aliens of the universe assembled above Earth as he announced he'll stand in their way and he has neither a plan nor any weapons, to "do the smart thing. Let somebody else try first." - and they all decided to fuck off instead.

So THAT Doctor suddenly became a bumbling idiot who succeeded only through luck and plot convenience.

So maybe going back to Rose is a chance of a restart. After all, she _was_ Bad Wolf. Though I fear they'll just cheap out with some "oh, I just picked a familiar face at random" bullshit.

I wish, but nah, this is pure SciFi.

Why? Because it's not all in the brain. The brain is connected to the entire nervous system. The "mind-body duality" doesn't exist. You're not a mind that has a body, you're a body that has a mind. We know that the body can survive without the mind (coma patients, some extreme cases of mental or debilitating illness, etc.) - but there isn't one case of a mind without a body.

Even if you could upload yourself to a supercomputer with the same processing power as your brain, I'm pretty sure the first dozens or hundreds of such experiments will go the SpaceX Starship way - lots of fireworks for every tiny bit of ground gained.

I personally think that we should do work on replicating less complex parts of the nervous system first. One, we'll need it if we want to do full mind digitalisation. Two, it can help people today (amputees, etc.). Three, there is already some work with great progress going on.

I double-checked and it's not April 1st.

WTF?

Capitalism is now packaging wage-slavery as a product and SELLING it to us?

I hope the AIs evolve quickly to take over. My hope for humanity is melting faster than the ice caps.

Yeah. Never, ever, do that. I've run a few online communities. Back when your own forum was still a thing and you could survive without being a group on Facebook, a subreddit or a Stackoverflow.

Your most active users aren't always your best users, and they almost always are NOT the ones you want to have as moderators.

If I could do all that again, I would give mod rights to the people who contribute just a bit, but consistently over a long time, and who read more than they write.

I mean, this site only got any attention at all SOLELY because it was "AI everything". Otherwise, who would have even really gone to the site in the first place given how many hundreds of other recipe sites are out there?

and the thing about AI marketing is that, well, that's pretty damn obvious when you see it currently, for the text and images (never mind the copyright concerns), and then require more money to actually get out there in advertising.

It wasn't lawfare against Trump. The man is guilty of multiple felonies that would have landed anyone else in prison for decades.

Trump, on the other hand, has engaged in lawfare, going after people purely because they didn't like him or because they did something that annoyed him, like providing legal counsel to someone he doesn't like. So far, he is mostly losing. How long that matters is still up in the air.

Monica Cellio was reportedly fired when she asked if it was OK if she used gender-neutral language that does not use pronouns at all, since that can help avoid misgendering situations. She also said that use of preferred pronouns was the right thing to do, and that knowingly misgendering someone is wrong. She said that she was told by other moderators that avoiding third-person singular pronouns was itself misgendering. It's not clear from what she wrote if she was fired for asking the question, or fired preemptively for potentially not following in the future a policy that was still under development, and she may not have known at the time. From what I've read, I'm not sure if that was ever entirely established.

Stack Overflow later posted a very legalese response "regretting" how it all turned out and any damage to Monica's reputation, while also offering to allow her to apply for reinstatement. Monica stated in the same thread that she could not say anything for legal reasons, suggesting that there was a settlement. She did not attempt to get reinstated, and left SO entirely a few months later.

or you had to figure out how to get code written for an Apple ][ to work on an Atari 400/800 (and hope there weren't any peeks and pokes in the graphics sections as those were pretty much untranslatable without an assembly guide to the graphics renderer).

Granted, that skill became VERY useful into college and adulthood needing to get C(++) code written for BSD/SunOS 4 to work in SystemV systems, back before "./configure" was a common thing in open source packages.

Yes, but for that you've gotta do something suspicious first. And that's the point - visiting a Star Wars fan site is not suspicious. Getting e-mails from someone@cia.gov is.

Where have we heard that before? Ah yes. The movie industry once swore in court that not making VHS illegal would kill the movie industry.

So sad that the court decided against them, and we all know the industrial wasteland that Hollywood became and how no movies were ever made again...

The 90s called, they want their parsing problems back, and they were incredily surprised that in 2025 we still haven't solved them.

(especially in HTML, where it's so trivial: & + known list of characters + ; - I mean, the moment you encounter a space you can stop parsing, for example.

Ah, there's your problem. It's managers thinking that the productivity of programmers can be measured in lines of code or some other silly metric.

Speaking about it, that DOES explain why everyone and their dog have shifted to the bullshit "let's put every bracket on its own line" style. More lines. Clever.

I don't think so. And also: I'm old enough to remember at least two times before were AI was "on the brink of revolutionizing everything". I agree that this time we're closer than before, but:

One, AI is still no guarantee to get what you want.
Two, sooner or later people will realize that if you can describe what you want in enough detail for an AI to do it, you could get a human to do it as well.
Three, the immense cost of AI is currently shouldered by a couple companies with deep pockets (or investors with such). Once the hype has gone down and people ask for ROI, prices will raise.
Four, in everything that I've used AI for so far, I would rate its competence level at intern - has some basic knowledge, mostly knows what it's doing, you definitely want to check the output for mistakes.
Five, there are still plenty of creative things that AI doesn't do, or only does in very specific ways. When you've done enough text or image generation, you start to see the patterns. The repetitive outputs. The difficulty of getting the AI to give you a DIFFERENT output once it's gone down one path.
Six, as AI is training more and more on AI output, quality is already dropping in some areas. For other areas, it's a real challenge to find good training data. Many of the coding assistants are trained on StackOverflow and similar sites, and they are good for producing example code, and terrible at producing performant and secure code.

In summary: There are still enough challenges in AI and it's way too early to predict the end of the human race, again.