Well, your buying power would be crippled.

Their kids didn't. Treating everyone like an island is ultimately the purest form of the cancer that infects the US.

"those goals seem to be nearly impossible to attain"

Is it impossible to obtain - the national ethos sees absolutely no problem with the unbounded consolidation of wealth and power, so long as it is in the private sector.

The joke is the private sector is so powerful at this point, your public sector is just a sock with the private sector's hand up its ass.

That'll never change as long as the concept of even moderate, reasonable redistribution of wealth is a national non-starter. It's impressive watching the way the US twists itself this way and that, where everybody is just a temporarily embarrassed billionaire voting for less taxes, less spending to make their supposed future rich selves happy for when they finally join the billionaire class.

Sure, itâ(TM)s quite possible for two people to exchange offhand remarks about the local weather apropos of nothing, with no broader point in mind. It happens all the time, even, I suppose, right in the middle of a discussion of the impact of climate change on the very parameters they were discussing.

The thing to understand is we're talking about sixth tenths of a degree warming since 1990, when averaged over *the entire globe* for the *entire year*. If the change were actually distributed that way -- evenly everywhere over the whole year -- nobody would notice any change whatsoever; there would be no natural system disruption. The temperature rise would be nearly impossible to detect against the natural background variation.

That's the thinking of people who point out that the weather outside their doors is unusually cool despite global warming. And if that was what climate change models actually predicted, they'd be right. But that's not what the models predict. They predict a patchwork of some places experiencing unusual heat while others experience unusual coolness, a patchwork that is constantly shifting over time. Only when you do the massive statistical work of averaging *everywhere, all the time* out over the course of the year does it manifest unambiguously as "warming".

In the short term -- over the course of the coming decade for example, -- it's less misleading to think of the troposphere becoming more *energetic*. When you consider six tenths of a degree increase across the roughly 10^18 kg of the troposphere, that is as vast, almost unthinkable amount of energy increase. Note that this also accompanied by a *cooling* of the stratosphere. Together these produce a a series of extreme weather events, both extreme heat *and* extreme cold, that aggregated into an average increase that's meaningless as a predictor of what any location experiences at any point in time.

Nothing. SpaceX is doing fine. Starship is ambitious. It is also being developed in a manner not suitable to the sensibilities of the Western aerospace commentariat. SpaceX performs many tests, analyzes many failures and refines designs accordingly. This produces great designs at low cost, in less time, and many dramatic RUDs. The Russians did the same. They performed many tests on initially flawed designs and fixed the flaws they discovered until they had confidence in their designs.

The traditional Western, big aerospace way, as we can clearly see with SLS is to take a decade or more and consumes oceans of money analyzing a paper design beyond any conceivable failure mode. This works, but it's extremely expensive, glacially slow, and suitable only for national superpower scale budgets funding cost plus contractors with little to no thought given to a feasible long term business model. That's why all their marquee designs are now historic, and the next one is still nascent, wildly over budget, years late and likely redundant.

So don't worry too much about the deep thoughts of our professional spectators. You can be absolutely certain that Musk doesn't.

You'd think Broadcom et al. would pitch a fit given the billions they've spent developing Wi-Fi standards that include 6 GHz, developing 6 GHz devices, etc. It's not just owners of existing equipment. It's an entire industry that has been investing in 6 GHz Wi-Fi for years now.

I am saying I have no patience for the drearily predictable "quality" and "safety" FUD. There are severe problems in healthcare. Bad enough to risk neglecting our worship of medical authority. Bad enough to risk suffering possible unknown failures as an alternative to our chronic known failures.

This presumes we have quality. Do you believe that, without doubt? I don't. I have a lifetime of anecdotal evidence of failures by doctors, personally and among family, friends and others. Without (hopefully) inviting a deluge of corroboration, I can assure you the people reading this now can bury us in such stories.

Beyond that, we are in desperate need of lower cost solutions for medicine. You're free to attribute the extreme costs we see however you wish, but finger pointing won't fix it: the powers and interests involved aren't listening. What is needed is a disruption, and this looks like a real possibility. I, at least, don't immediately dismiss it with AMA FUD.

I agree. Questions like this often seem to come from people who don’t *want* to use AI, or perhaps are afraid of it for whatever reason, and they’re looking for reasons that they shouldn’t use it.

"Sane people use C for that" for embedded systems? That's a very "all i know I leaned from Slashdot" definition of embedded systems you must have

Show evidence of code theft, where these models are built with proprietary code that hasn't been liberally licensed and freely offered. Otherwise you're engaging in FUD.

A.) Zero ads: wading through prevailing search engines is a total shit show. I'm paying for LLM service, and I don't have to suffer that crap.
B.) Most examples are written by learners that are, themselves, ignorant of the sort of subtleties I mentioned. LLMs do better than that: they evaluate code and point out stuff that would otherwise be overlooked.

Dunno if you're a programmer or not, but if you're not extensively testing and verifying what you wrote before you put it in production, you're doing it wrong.

You have to verify and test *all* code. LLMs are great for producing a bunch of boiler plate code that would take a long time to write and is easily testable. The claim that LLMs are useless for programming flies in the face of everything happening in the ivoriest of towers of programming these days. Professionals in every major shop in the world use it now as appropriate. Sorry that makes you mad. I'm not young either. I've been producing C++ on embedded systems used by millions of people for 20+ years. Nobody doing serious programming takes the "LLMs are useless" opinion seriously anymore.

Yesterday, I wanted an example of a PIO program to generate high resolution, arbitrary waveform (variable frequency) PWM output using DMA on an RP2350 MCU. Gemini 2.5 Pro generated a correct, working, basic example. I refined it further by changing and adding requirements to deal with end state, corner cases and the deficiencies in the generated code. The final result works perfectly. Guessing here: It took probably perhaps 25% of the time to accomplish this than it would have without "AI." And while PIO appears simple, there is actually a lot of subtlety in the hardware that a new PIO programmer, without an AI, would likely either not know provides useful capabilities or would overlook, yielding less than optimal results and/or actual flaws. By using Gemini, I believe the code is on par with what a PIO expert would have produced.

So yes, it is actually helpful. And no, I don't believe this makes me or others like me obsolete: non-technical people cannot achieve the same results in reasonable amounts of time because they don't even know what to ask for, much less how to evaluate the answers.

All Overstreet needs to is continue development as he wishes. There is no fundamental reason bcachefs must be included in Linus's mainline kernel. The kernel has loadable modules. This work can simply be a loadable module. There are tools to make this next to transparent to an end user, up to and including as a root file system. ZFS On Linux has existed this way for 15 years now. There are entire commercial empires built around it, and it has never, at any point, been in the Linux mainline code base.

Whatever benefit bcachefs previously enjoyed by being in the mainline kernel has been entirely squandered by the recurring drama. Best to separate the parties and forego future squabbles. Another wise and brave decision from Torvalds.