The machines that can run Windows 10 but not 11 really have no legitimate reasons they're incapable of using 11. It's generally artificial barriers put up by Microsoft because the chips lack a feature or two they're trying to make a new standard.

In a few cases, it's literally nothing more than an oversight! My co-worker was just telling me about a specific model of Xeon CPU he's got that has some long "sub-model" vs a simple model number like 5360 or 5500 or what-not. It has every single function in it that Microsoft says is needed by Win 11, yet you can't put 11 on it. Why? Only because Microsoft neglected to list its specific model/sub-model in its database it uses to determine the machines capable of installing 11 on them.

If they want all these people off Windows 10, they could design 11 so it runs more like 10, with a few of the features disabled that require the instructions the older CPUs lack, when it detects those processors.

Apple did this with iOS multiple times already. A new iOS version still runs on older phones but with a few features disabled if those specific features need the newer phone's CPU to work.

On one hand, every parent of kids or teens today has to feel the struggle with social media influencing their journey to adulthood. Sometimes it's just a harmless fad that generates a ton of sales for some useless toy or gadget. But often, it's about the added complexity of a world where their "friends" can be people anywhere in the world who they only communicate with online, and who parents are often powerless to "vet". It's about questions of "bullying" and how far an institution like a public school can really reach to address it, when it starts happening online. It's about uncertainties of whether all the "screen time" creates real mental or physical health threats.

But when it comes to technologies like a chat bot? I don't think there should be these legal expectations that they do such things as guiding people to other resources to get help for the issues they talk to them about. I don't even think the authors of these chat bots necessarily considered the idea a pre-teen would confide everything in one and treat it as their "only true friend"? As a rule, they're harmless as long as they're not actively suggesting adult or illegal activities, so giving them "age ratings" of 12+ makes perfect sense.

Troubled kids or teens need to be given REAL help and warned away from relying on automated AI solutions.

Will this change my tax exposure when providing 'gratuities' to supreme court justices?

Ha! Same thing I thought. The reality, whether you're talking New Orleans or anyplace else is -- the money gets spent to repair and protect the areas that bring in the most continued wealth. Racism has nothing to do with this.

If you have an area that's full of tourist traffic or that continually draws in the super-wealthy for amenities like the great golf courses or waterfront or ?? You've got an area that generates enough revenue, it cost-justifies having to rebuild there occasionally when natural disasters strike.

Everyone else is living there at their own risk, really.

To be honest, I noted LONG ago that "withdrawing cash from out-of-network ATMs likely has a fairly big cost" and tried to avoid it. I never kept up with exactly what those fees were, after that. I simply learned to plan ahead better. If I need cash, I tend to take it out from my own bank or credit union and if I need it broken up into smaller bills? I try to spend it someplace that has to give me cash back on the purchase.

Last I checked though, most big credit unions are part of a cooperative network so you can use any of their ATMs without any fees (at least up to, say, 20 transactions per month).

It seems like an open question whether being repetitive and rule based is actually a virtue as an AI use case or not.

'AI' is an easy sell for people who want to do some 'digital transformation' they can thought-leader about on linkedin without actually doing the ditch-digging involved in solving the problem conventionally "Hey, just throw some unstructured inputs at the problem and the magic of Agentic will make the answer come out!"; but that's not really a a good argument in favor of doing it that way. Dealing with such a cryptic, unpredictable, and expensive tool is at its most compelling when you have a problem that isn't readily amenable to conventional solutions; while it looks a lot like sheer laziness when you take a problem that basically just requires some form validation logic and a decision tree and throw an LLM at it because you can't be bothered to construct the decision tree.

There are definitely problems, some of them even useful, that are absolutely not amenable to conventional approaches; and those at least have the argument that perhaps unpredictable results are better than no results or manual results; but if you've got some desperately conventional business logic case that someone is turning into an 'AI' project either because they are a trend chaser or because they think that programming is an obscurantist conspiracy against the natural language Idea Guys by fiddly syntax nerds that's not a good sign.

As a direct test of the tool that sounds pretty underwhelming(and it's not a cheap upsell); but what seems really concerning is the second order effects. Your average office environment doesn't exactly lack for emails or bad powerpoint decks; and both get chiseled right out of the productivity of the people expected to read or sit through them. The more cynical sales types just go directly to selling you the inhuman centipede solution; where everyone else also needs a copilot license so they can summarize the increased volume of copilot-authored material; but that only bandaids the "if it's not worth writing why are you trying to write more of it?" problem.

It's also not clear why we'd need investors if AI good enough to eat all the jobs exists. Even without 'AI' a fairly massive amount of investment is handled by the relatively simple 'just dump it in an index fund and don't touch it, idiot' algorithm; and even allegedly sophisticated professionals have a fairly tepid track record when it comes to actually realizing market-beating returns.

Obviously it's this guy's job to promote retail investing as a cure-all; because that's what he sells; but this seems transparently stupid.

If 'AI' has eaten all the jobs; why exactly would we have humans 'investing' for a living? Surely AI good enough to eat all the jobs could also match or exceed the performance of the average trader?

This proposal basically seems like UBI, but capitalism-washed with a pointless (and likely dangerous; given that retail noise trading is basically gambling for people who think they are too smart for gambling) financial services layer tacked on to avoid admitting that it's UBI by pretending that everyone is an investor instead.

Can we step back and look at a slightly bigger picture? I mean, come on.... if Trump had anywhere NEAR the amount of influence some of you pretend he does, we'd already be a very different country than we are. If anything, the fact he's been elected twice now and if I turn off the news, I hardly notice anything is different in my daily life tells me the President is far more of a "figurehead" than I used to realize.

No .... if anything? I think America may be experiencing a recession/recovery cycle that's more shallow and quicker to complete than what we had in the past. For example, we rebounded quickly from everything that happened during COVID, despite unprecedented factors there that harmed small business.

People are generally still afraid of any perceived downturn, but some of that stems from what they know happened in the past -- when a recession was deeper and longer-lived.

America is very much a service economy today, with manufacturing a distant second. That tends to stabilize things to some extent (at the cost of creating more jobs that don't lead to higher-paying career positions). EG. You might have fewer people making 6 figure salaries as tool and die experts, but you also have more people who earn a steady, predictable income doing retail sales or restaurant work, or might be self-employed as a handyman or painter. The rapid changes of supply and demand for hard goods doesn't lead to mass job losses when factories close, etc.

We may not have had the safety culture to the same degree; but, given the number of insecticides that are acetylcholinesterase inhibitors not miles off the efficacy of their more alarmingly named colleagues among the g-series and v-series nerve agents; it seems pretty likely that 50s chemists knew full well that they were poking some very, very, troublesome compounds.

Probably not in a position to tease out some of the more subtle neuroanatomical changes at low prenatal doses or the like given medical imaging of the time; but with a bunch of these we are talking about either compounds we worried about IG Farben tinkering with during the war or close analogs thereof.

You'd think that beavers would feel a strong natural affinity for the Dutch; given their shared enthusiasm for hydrological engineering, and show more respect for their colleagues' dams.

If your CTO thinks that Legal can solve his problems you are either Oracle or in exceptionally deep trouble.

I'd be curious if there is some asymmetry in their systems because of the enthusiasm of retail type outfits for trying to keep potential damage from basically untrusted employees to a minimum.

You see it a lot in grocery stores, and big box/department store setups where there are either certain POS operations that lock up and require manager approval(seems most common if they need to void a mis-scan over a certain value or multiple mis-scans or customer-decides-they-don't-want-it changes of order; or if something is being returned); and in the fast foot setups where there are displays over the various prep stations telling people what needs to be made for a specific order number there often either aren't controls or the controls are not intended to be interacted with(which is sensible design if you've got french fry grease and food safety concerns in the mix; but likely means that the guy at the soda fountain being able to void a screen full of orders is either unsupported or intended to be a very infrequent case).

I could see that going poorly if you just grafted the bot on in place of either the human operator(who will just not take your 18,000 water cup order, so it will never exist as far as the system and its constraints are concerned) or the app(which has no common sense but is both tied to someone's account information and vastly simpler to constrain with boring, ancient, form validation logic) and immediately started dumping its interpretations of orders into the system as valid.

Probably not flood-the-store material; but plausibly quite disruptive if it's intended to be fairly uncommon for orders to need to just be disappeared once they are in.

What seems frankly depressing is that a C-level would think(and quite possibly have reason to think) that that sort of aw-shucks-lessons-are-being-learned-about-things-nobody-could-have-predicted tone is exonerating outside of a fairly tiny, low stakes, test program somewhere.

It's not like having somebody take a poke at connecting a system that is supposed to be pretty OK-ish at natural language processing and text-to-speech to an ordering system is particularly unreasonable; at the scale they are operating probably more unreasonable not to; but "well, it's live in 500 locations and we've learned that a technology synonymous with prompt injections and a lack of common sense so profound it's almost a category error to suggest it could have any isn't super robust..." makes you sound unbelievably dumb and risk insensitive.