Yep. Whenever I heard a "that's not X, that's Y", a "here's the surprising thing", a "here's what no one's talking about", a "it isn't about P, it isn't about Q, it isn't even about R, it's about S", and similar sloppisms, I immediately stop watching/listening/reading, downvote, block, and try to forget the broken timeline we all ended up in.

The silver lining is that there's a tiny but growing movement among young people, late Gen Z and early Alpha mostly, who are so tired of all the BS they're actively going offline and analog, which makes sense, after all, all the adults are online, and kids always want to do the opposite of whatever boring adults are doing. I hope something worthwhile comes from that impulse.

I can't think of anything worse than this. (OK well I can but..) This has all the veneer of a 'podcast' (ugh i hate that term) but without any of the substance. Why on earth would I want to listen to a fake podcast ? What the actual fuck. I listen to radio, long form talk, and 'podcasts' because I want to hear what the person has to say. either the show host or the interviewee. This really just sounds like a way to get adverts and effectively droids inserted into content that looks like something it isn't. horrifying.

> The CDC does say some patients can continue to spread Ebola in semen after they recover, although I'm not expert enough to know if there have been confirmed cases transmitted in this manner.

I can confidently say, there's no point asking that on Slashdot ;-)

"Computer brief me on $subject" is very cool, at least if you had some degree of faith in correctness.

Briefings are by definition going to contain some over simplifications. Something like Marketplace's "Make me smart" is probably a good format for audio to be consumed while doing something physical driving, laundry, splitting logs, cutting the lawn etc..

The existence of LLMs apparently makes people stupider.

I reviewed some recent anti-phishing training material last week and - I kid you not - it had a section on "you asked an AI for a company's phone number, but it might be malicious because..."

What the fuck? People do that? AI is linguistic probability based on the volume of materials ingested. Garbage data abounds. Going to company.com and finding the number is always the right choice. And if you can't find the number because the company hides it, find other, related numbers. But asking a language model for a fact is inviting inaccuracy and poisoned results.

Alexa is only good for turning on my lights and setting a timer. If I want to compete I better start figuring out how to do both at the same time.

All they're doing is moving up the frequency from Ghz to Thz.

Then release the video on pay-per-view.

That's a shocker. It's an advert fruit machine paying out an update from a friend once in 30, and has an AI which cannot work out what a joke is at a basic level.

Dying company continues to die.

Of course. The problem was, Sony thought they were doing Microsoft dirty by buying up Bungie. After all, Bungie propelled Microsoft big into the console market with Halo, and what a coup it would be for Sony to buy Bungie out from Microsoft.

The problem is Sony was trying to get them into a market they themselves have saturated - the Games as a Service - or the market of online team shooters along the gist of Fortnite, Destiny and others. If you look at them, most of them were done by Sony - they had practically all their first party studios working on games like this. And they really should've taken note of Concord which they scrapped after it was released on the market a few months due to poor sales. As in, the market is saturated with those gamese

And now you have Bungie trying to create the same genre of game in an over saturated market - it's not going to do well. The people interested in these kinds of games already have heavily invested in other games. And the people not interested aren't going to start playing because "hey it's from the Halo guys".

The appeal of games with microtransactions is huge, but when the market is tapped out, releasing more won't produce more money.

And is the MA in chemical engineering or puppetry arts?

This is near infrared light (just below red light). Light cloud cover may not be a problem but heavy cloud cover is.

They patched it rapidly only to have a very similar vulnerability affecting the very same components drop like a day later.

Arguably the patching effort lacked real analysis, that should have been triggered, and got pushed out with the first obvious fix applied. On the other hand leaving users with only the option to implement a workaround that disables ipsec while a full fix is investigated, is also a problem...

I am not criticizing anyone here, disclosure vs time to patch, and regression avoidance in complex software systems is a difficult problem. While it speaks to things like code quality and security priority, I don't think when it comes to large software projects you can really charaterize either of those things with a methodolgy that amounts SELECT COUNT(*) FROM cve WHERE project = ....