If only we hadn't forced Trump to call off dismantling that ocean monitoring network, none of this would have happened! I mean, if you don't bother to measure it, does it really happen?

Slave labor in the developing world helps keep prices down as well.

Yes, Grok absolutely operates under "strict neutrality rules" because the owner would NEVER manipulate anything to his own ideology ... ...

Do you actually believe his horseshit? Are you really that daft?

Do you believe this horseshit equally about Meta?

Do you suffer from extreme myopic vision of easily observed reality?

Would you rather we just go direct to the bone and call him a white supremacist psychopathic lying cunt?

I'm pretty sure "weirdo" was a massive layer of gloss being applied to him being a white supremacist psychopathic lying cunt.

The two development models are as different as night and day.

SpaceX indexed on rapid iteration and tolerating catastrophic failure to learn from it.

Remember, NASA didn't exactly have a flawless execution record either - they blew up a LOT of early rockets that just didn't have people on them. They also launched Saturn III rockets unmanned to test systems before putting people on the scaled up Saturn V - in fact, the Apollo 7 mission was not launched on a Saturn V because it was only going to orbit. And they still killed a few people on the pad (Apollo 1 incident).

By the way, in case you think I'm some Musk fanboy, I hope he gets antibiotic-resistant chlamydia so he can have burning urination for the rest of his days.

This doesn't seem like a lie, a NIC is in a pretty good position to knock something off the network if it feels like it and the 'bluefield' devices have enough punch onboard to run some rules regarding whether or not to do that; but it seems like a wild exaggeration of how helpful it actually is.

If you actually have a set of rules that detect your bot being wicked it will presumably save you some CPU time to run them on the NIC rather than having the host CPU watching the traffic; but the hard part is the set of rules that detect your bot being wicked.

This is basically the equivalent of adding a firewall and claiming that you've solved network security. Yeah, the firewall is pretty well placed to block malicious traffic; defining 'malicious traffic' is left as an exercise for the reader.

Without this specific context, (yeah, like I read TFA) "pink slime" in my mind refers to low-fat beef trimmings that are gently heated and spun in a centrifuge to separate fat from remaining protein for making low-cost nasty shit like prison food and McDonalds hamburger patties.

See: Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB)

Well then I guess it isn't a problem, because if you aren't using them nobody is.

Right?

Right?

Why even waste your time posting this?

And they've still been rewarded for it. Oh no, they have to pay these guys $5B! They're still up hundreds of billions, and now they have a nice tax writeoff.

Who won here? The outside counsel lawyers, as always.

They are positioning AI as the nuclear weapons of the 21st century, angling for a nationalization as a strategic weapon when the bottom drops out of it.

The AI bubble bursting will wreck the economy far harder than the Dotcom bubble did. And the dynamic is OBVIOUS. This is not an "if" problem, it's a "when" problem.

If AI produces a maximal result along the lines of what the frontier labs suggest, it'll eat fifty million jobs, which will wreck the economy far harder, and for far longer.

The constant chatter about AI breakout is half legitimate concern and half positioning to nationalize it, shielding the circular dealing crew from consequences.

This will not be Skynet; as a society we are far too primed to envision events that can be told in a single two hour action adventure with a clear, satisfying ending. When the historians get to this they will note the breakout happened 2025 - 2027 -- because that will be the time where human network threats enhanced by AI will starting further enhancing AI.

There are no "sides" to this, it'll be like the African savanna - lions, leopards, hyenas, cheetahs, wild dogs, servals & caracals, clear down to my personal favorite, the black backed jackal. A network of carnivores of various sizes pursue networks of herbivores. Nation states, corporations, non-state actors, activist groups, talented individuals; all are making use of AI in conflicts already.

The genie can not be put back in the bottle, the open models are only a little behind the frontier, and things are going to keep happening no matter what bellicose policy pronouncements come from an increasingly irrelevant Washington, D.C.

I'll be riding the Claude subsidy until it ends, then hopefully have acquired a potent professional GPU or unified memory setup of my own. Won't be nearly as quick, but it'll keep me moving.

Now scale that thinking up by whatever percentage of eight billion people have technical capabilities. That's the future.

The models are not good at math. They use external planning tool calls and separate calculation engines that are good at math but are not AI.

Sort of like mathematicians then. Because most mathematicians are pretty damn dependent on external tools. My old housemate was a PhD pure mathematics researcher. He couldn't multiply to save his arse.

Though he was a borderline alcoholic and seemingly perpetually drunk, so theres that.

Support for Office 2016 and 2019 ends October 14th of this year; I assume that the feature is dropping now; rather than either 20 years ago as part of ECMA-376 and eventually in a live product for either Office 2010 or 2013, or never if they didn't want to do that, in order to draw a hard line under the utility of those?

It otherwise seems like a kind of weird time to do it. In principle what a 'cell' is has never really had an obvious mandatory scale: it has essentially always been relevant that a 'cell' existed in relation to other cells, so that something like an array could be a row; but it has also long been allowed and encouraged to do things like substring operations that acknowledge that cell contents are 'larger' objects that contain smaller ones; and are not automatically spilled out for that reason alone. Not clear that the pragmatic use case for spreadsheets would ever have supported some sort of 'any data type that implies it can be decomposed into elements shall be' rule, strings getting broken up into substrings and so on; but it's also not clear that the pragmatic use case is going to be much clarified by a single cell being n levels deep of lists and arrays of lists and arrays being a fully supported thing rather than something you hack on by shoving JSON into text cells or whatever.

It definitely seems like asking for confusion when some, but only some, "excel spreadsheets" have cells that are arrays, potentially of arrays, while others have rows of cells with contents that, at least formally, are not acknowledged as arrays.

Now we have AI scanning the Linux source code and showing that it's vaunted security has been through obscurity for far too long,

Either you don't understand what security through obscurity is, or your being incredibly disengenous. Linux's source has been on public display since the outset. Windows has never been on display (except for the occasional leak). Automatically and by definition Linuxes security has been less "by obscurity" than it would ever be possible for windows to have been, short of a full sourcecode release by microsoft.

Security by Obscurity does not refer to "nobody has found the bug yet", it refers to an intentional policy of hiding design features to try and slow down an attacker. Which rarely is a useful tool. And sometimes actively harmful, particularly if its stopping security researchers finding holes to patch.

Because at the moment , the current large amount of holes being found is literally proof that Linux's model of NOT obscuring security works as we get to find those bugs and patch them. In other words whats happening now is proof that Linux's model works.