The Engineer had agency. The AI (or google search, or a stack of text books) does not.

Of course, if the mad bomber instead posed as a student and found some non-evil reason for wanting the exits to collapse first (even a thin one like directing the dust upwards), the engineer is less culpable or not culpable at all.

But we need to be very careful about imagining an AI has agency. There are many legal and philosophical implications behind that.

I suspect that he's neither the first nor the last who are genuinely quite eager to see more 'equity participation' in some of the big bot shops; given that they've burned through all the VC they can get and even the dumb money is starting to get nervous. Retail bagholders and state investment under the guise of benevolence would be just the thing.

What is much less clear is whether the same amount of interest will be present once current investors take enough of a haircut that the remainder is actually worth something, or one or more of them actually start turning a profit.

The real problem is "connected", not un-encrypted.

So the addresses are bigger, so what?

In most cases, all you care about is the prefix, which is just 64 bits, expressed as 4 groups of 4 hex digits. This is IT, is hex really beyond people's grasp?

Most of the admin is done one terminals that support cut and paste anyway.

What if I voted for a cat but the election went to a pit bull with a brain injury?

Sounds like it's time for U.S. auto makers to figure out how Chines manufacturers are making their cars so inexpensive.

And no, it's NOT all from cheap labor. It's also from efficiency, making a fair profit rather than hand over fist, less marble and mahogany in the executive suite, and paying a reasonable amount to upper management. Also less jet setting for execs.

Do we REALLY have to repeat the '70s and '80s when the Japanese manufacturers spanked the big three?

What happened to "free trade" and "deregulate all the things!"

Yes. This is a pretty straightforward "Guy demands that sellers of complimentary goods accept smaller margins in way that sounds like he cares about user experience".

It may be true that studios and theatres have fallen into a counterproductive trap: there's an obviously self defeating race to the bottom if theatres keep getting squeezed and responding by making the theatre experience worse which then reduces ticket sales and makes their fixed costs even less supportable so they make the experience yet worse; but the studios hold far more of the cards than the theatres do here.

In an unhelpful sense we know that advertising works by how much is spent on it. What we do not know is whether advertisers justify their cost by influencing consumer behavior as they allege they do; or whether they are exceptionally effective at targeting the people who set ad budgets. Or potentially a mix of the two. Someone is definitely having their behavior influenced in a big way though.

Given how tightly a lot of meetings are really wrapped up in power (all the ones that could have been an email but are about who you an force to show up and all the ones that could have been an email but are about cutting someone out of the loop in a visible way) it tracks that the desire to be in your meeting while skipping your meeting would come from the top; probably accompanied by some questionable theories about how your management is so valuable that even a mechanized distillation of it will better the minions exposed to it.

Are they going to try to avoid it preying on younger LLMs, or is that seen as a benefit when dealing with the emergence of potential competitors?

I didn't know that there was a class of ads that facebook wouldn't touch; they are legendarily flexible so long as the advertiser is paying.

Back when "Broadcom" meant "Henry Nicholas doing all the drugs" it was at least crooked in an entertaining sort of way.

After Avago took over and used them as a namesake and skin suit it was all downhill.

Is there some aspect of this grinder that anyone thinks is actually encouraging us to toss more meat into it?

According to the writeup; there are two methods: it is possible for an extension to mark some parts of itself as 'web accessible'; and linkedin has assembled at least one characteristic file for 6,1000-odd extension IDs and attempts to fetch it to confirm/deny the extension's presence.

The other is based on the fact that the whole point of many extensions is to modify the site in some way; but the site normally has largely unfettered access to inspect itself, so they have theirs set up to walk the entire DOM looking for any references to "chrome-extension://" and snagging the IDs if found.

Not exactly a 'declare installed extensions'; but it looks like, out of some combination of supporting the use cases where an extension and page actively interact by design and either not wanting the possibility or not wanting the complexity of trying to enable 'invisible' edits(presumably some sort of 'shadow' DOM mechanism where as far as the site and everything delivered with it knows only its unedited DOM and resources exist; but the one the user sees is an extension-modified copy of that one, which sounds like it could get messy), inferential attacks are fairly easy and powerful.

Where exactly does supporting 3 people on $133k/year count as 'upper middle class'? You could be doing a lot worse, and many are; but that's not just tons of money in a HCOL area; and that's also lower than twice the median salary for full time employees with bachelor's degrees; so you are calling either a single income household doing a bit better than median or a dual income one doing worse 'upper middle class'; which seems pretty ambitious.