If O'Reilly ever publishes a book on e.g. ChatGPT, this needs to be the cover.

So no citation then?

[citation needed]

The idea that new build anything is cheaper than nuclear that has been operating for three decades or more is ridiculous on its face. If I'm wrong, please, by all means, direct me to the evidence thereof.

Sorry, you were talking about prices today and "still using" nuclear. Your comment re: subsidies suggests you are talking about Hinkley Point, which is not yet generating power and no subsidies for said power generation are being paid.

Existing nuclear is probably the cheapest energy in your grid. The "good news" at least for you is that almost all of it is scheduled for decommissioning by the end of the decade, so you will be able to see just how "expensive" it was when your rates go up as a result.

You should have been replying to the other guy. Something screwed up with my quote block so it looks like the ignorant statement was written by me, but I was trying to quote him. Agreed it's a pretty dumb take, which was my point.

Darth Cheeto is not going to permit any coal plants--not because of anything related to him, but because no one has any plants to permit. Anything currently being discussed is a pencil exercise at best (and will almost certainly never come to fruition).

I work for a company that provides equipment for fossil power plants. There is a shit ton of gas coming in the next five years but no coal at all. New coal power is dead in the US.

Energy prices in the UK are high because we are still using too much gas and nuclear

You realize the vast majority of cost in nuclear is in the construction, yes? The idea that "energy costs are high because we are still using nuclear" is absurd. Decommissioning nuclear plants will increase your costs.

I wonder if there is anything that has been going on for the last half century or so that could explain why employees could be more efficient and you might have less of them for the same task, even in the face of having more customers. Some sort of revolution, maybe of the computer sort?

On second thought, nah, that wouldn't make any sense.

This was a huge issue for my oldest in middle school. She was in a very small minority that did not have a phone. It was made worse by the fact that we don't have a landline, so if friends wanted to call her, they were calling either my wife or my phone (and the kids calling were not a huge fan of that, so they didn't call much). In addition to the social aspects, it caused a few issues with extracurriculars where one of us wasn't present and things like pickup times were fuzzy rather than fixed.

We stuck to our guns and didn't let her have a phone until 14 but I'd be a liar if I said it didn't have negative aspects in addition to positive ones. Our youngest might end up with a phone closer to 12 as a result, though that remains to be seen.

Sure. But given that there's no mention of that in the story or the discussion, that seems to be less reasonable to infer.

"Know?" Maybe not. "Infer?" Absolutely. 10AM-6PM is in the range that normal office workers are at their desks, so it stands to reason they are asking their office workers to be in a warehouse instead of at their desks. It's not exactly a giant leap to conclude such.

There is a UFC fight scheduled for the white house lawn next year.

I wish I were kidding. :(

I didn't say "faster" I said "more time teaching" which is, you know, the purpose of the exercise. There's nothing morally repugnant about removing labor to free up time for other, more important things (unless you're a Luddite or a Calvinist, I guess).

While the kids using AI to do their work for them is an obvious problem, I don't think there is anything wrong with using AI to help with lesson planning and testing as long as the teacher actually understands what they are teaching and checks that the AI isn't hallucinating when it produces the material. Grading could also be a net positive, again as long as the teacher understands and reviews what the AI does.

Giving more teachers time to actually teach is a good thing.

I'm no fan of Bank of America, but with 70,000,000 customers, "hundreds" of problematic accounts seems more like they're doing a good job in this area rather than a bad one.