If it were really cold, I could imagine wanting the Kindle to be on a bedside stand, and reading lying on the side with both hands under the covers. But this seems a really niche use-cae.

It's the built-in page turning buttons that I miss. I dislike swiping (sometimes I don't swipe far enough) or having to touch a specific area of a page. Clear clicky buttons are so much nicer, especially for one-handed use. At least my phone has volume buttons I can use to page through books.

I used to think pages are just an unnecessary analog legacy. However, many of us who work a lot with texts have visual memories, and remember where on a page a given thing was said. Even the difference between left and right pages can help with remembering the content.

That said, I like the way that a scrolling text gives a finer-grained bookmark than a whole page: you can align the next part to read with the top of the screen and go away and come back to it.

It's probably a bit faster to put a finger on a physical page, flip back keeping the finger in place, and then return to the finger than to set a bookmark, flip back, return to bookmark, and then delete the now no-longer needed bookmark.

It wouldn't be hard to make a UI for this use case, though, that is just as good. Maybe you hold a corner, and it creates a temporary bookmark. Now you can flip back and forth at your leisure, while having a semi-transparent "Return" button, and when you click that button you go back to where you were, and the temporary bookmark disappears. (There may be a better workflow, but that's what occurred to me on the spur of the moment.)

Which is nonsense. There is nothing new under the sun. People have been kicking off interactions to complex to fully imagine all possible outcomes for as long as we have had laws, and the law has had approaches to assigning responsibility anyway.

Say you are back country camping in a national park. You absolutely can be held responsible if your campfire gets out of control and you start a forest fire, and you are found to have acted 'carelessly'. Even if you had a back country permit, and even if the park rules allow campfires.

We are not in uncharted territory here as how to apply standards like negligence. We may very well have gaps in our current law where various hacking and electronic abuse laws don't cover a negligent mens rea, but that could be easily fixed. It just takes little amendment to change a 'knowingly' to 'negligently' and its fixed. What we lack is a public will to hold these people accountable for anything. This is I think why they are so desperate to go public even while their actual financials SUCK...They want to cerement themselves as TBTF entities.

Sometimes the worst port of incident response is the responders not knowing when to just STFU.

Honestly what a statement to make. Nobody breaks into a system exfils and bunch of records without authorization without some intention to miss use the information. I guess there is a edge case where it is 'just a stunt' or part of some pentest/proof of concept exercise, in the latter case though it isn't an incident and is authorized just not thru ordinary procedure.

All saying you have no indication the information has been miss used is really saying is - it is absolutely being used against us (collectively) or our personnel individually AND we don't have the intelligence capability to identify how or whom specifically..

This is worth a mod up ^

5k is a heck of a lot of headcount for what Mongo seems to have in terms of scope of product offerings and support services.

Sounds like you're not defending Access so much as ODBC.

It's mighty convenient for you that your claim makes it impossible for you to provide evidence of this outrageous claim.

... is not let AI get into the hands of people like Bill Gates. That, however, is impossible.

Chatbots have been biased since I remember. You ask the right question, you get the opinion of someone who was in charge.

I doubt you can trust even today's chatbots etc. to be 'unbiased', though in the current political landscape everyone thins what they disagree with is 'biased', neither genuine nor true.

Such has been politics since Aristotle. Add in violence, and, well, some like von Clausewitz believe all politics is violence of some form. Which I write not to endorse physical violence in any form, but to indict those who do.

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.

At minimum people have a duty of self care. Why are they expecting others to do that job for them!

I am not even arguing we should not help in hard cases, from both a policy and an ethical standpoint. However suggesting the in-action someone makes us responsible for those outcomes is insane.

Every type of law enforcement ever, has killed an innocent or two; especially in situations where people are protesting the law and large numbers of people are propagandized into obstructing law enforcement. ICE has a pretty damn good record here actually all things considered.

If you want to assign responsibility for these deaths, maybe take a hard look at the policy, organizations, media, legal system, prior executives who created a situation where we had massive numbers of people in unresolved extra legal status and allowed that problem to continue compounding for three decades. That is not party thing, either plenty of inaction under Bush etc to point at. Here is the dirty little secret about the who immigration conversation. Self interested liars who have a lot of media influence keep claiming Trump is the on violating the law here, when in fact he is the first person in the last 30 years to actually try to do what the IIRIRA actually requires the federal government to do. The Constitution requires the president to " âoetake care that the laws be faithfully executed", literally Clinton, Bush, and Obama, should constitutionally speaking have faced impeachment and conviction over IIRIRA!

No it hasn't killed a single person, not one. The conditions the locals have allowed to persist in places where USAID formerly was providing whatever...it was providing is what killed those people. Inaction in the form of lack of prevention where it requires concentrated effort and importantly you are not the proximate cause whatever the calamity might be in the first place is not equivalent to acting (killing).

Where was the EU? Where was the CCP? Where was the ANC? Where was OPEC or for that matter Walmart Corporation :-P How come none of them stepped in to fill the gap. What absolves them of culpability?