I'm anticipating the first time I see the word roboticide
I bought a can of this about a year ago, it works pretty well. I sprayed it all around the outside perimeter of the house, and a few choice inside spots. You have to re-apply it every 6 months or so, but worth it.
Qantas never crashed.
You have to physically disable the modem to avoid that.
And nobody knows how to do that, and if they did there's no guarantee the car would keep working. I bring this up to prevent the quoted statement from making someone think that "disabling your car modem is a thing" people do... it isn't, despite many -- like myself -- very much wanting to do so.
"I'm sorry. I seem to have burned down your house, despite your clear instructions not to do so. I'm very, very, terribly sorry."
They could easily have it back if they ran their own local offline model....
I wonder what the ven overlap would be of the categories "capable of running offline model" and "likely to fall in love with chatbot".
Great Scott! We just need 0.21 gigawatts more!
"macOS 27 Beta Boots Asahi Linux Off Apple Silicon "
I initially thought the above headline meant "MacOS capable of running Asahi Linux on Apple Silicon"... where as it appears the article is instead about almost the opposite, an incompatibility with a recent Apple change hampering its ability to run Asahi linux.
Most people simply don't care because they feel no need to hide anything.
I'd rephrase that as: Most people don't understand how much they have to hide, and -- because it's daunting for them to create an alternate tech ecosystem for themselves -- they psychologically push aside whatever nagging worries they have about what they might indeed want to hide.
Put another way: people are addicted to the current status quo, and trapped by their lack of tech expertise. Which is not the same as objectively self-assessing that they have nothing to hide.
Class of '26, in before proctors!
an amusing example of how training can go wrong
My understanding is that this isn't a consequence of a flawed training algorithm or process; it's instead a consequence of the limitations of LLMs, emergent from their training materials. It closely parallels another example I've seen around the net, that of asking an LLM about getting a car to the mechanic, noting it's a sunny day and the mechanic is just a block away, and having the LLM suggest walking... which is a consequence of the bias in training materials toward walking because lots of people make visible posts about their having done so (because it's looked on favorably), whereas people who drive short distances (of which there are many, probably outnumbering walkers) don't trumpet having done so online, leading LLMs to emit advice about walking when possible (and in the case of the mechanic example, having a lack of comprehension of the pivotal aspect of having the car make it with you to the mechanic's shop).
People act like life expectancies have been getting shorter.
They romanticize historic and prehistoric diets alike, as if they were utopian; as if people somehow intuited what to eat, or else that the constraints of supply somehow shaped digestive evolution like an intelligently designed metabolic symphony of symbiosis. That ignores the plain reality of volatile supplies -- even after the advent of agriculture, but especially before it -- and the reality that evolution is not driven by perfect health or life expectancy; only by surviving long enough to reproduce.
Even if modern diets are "unhealthy" (whatever that means), that doesn't imply that people were eating healthier at any point in the past. In fact, skeletal records clearly show that human existence has been rife with scurvy, rickets, iron deficiency, and stunted growth. Nutritional deficiencies were the norm, not the exception. Now (many people) have abundance, and that presents its own challenges, but the notion of an ideal, historic nutritional baseline is pure fiction. It's turtles all the way down.
Some people pray for more than they are willing to work for.
