What does this add over a simple RF control? All I want is to be able to open and close my door from my car and inside the garage. Turning the light on separately is a nice to have (which I do have), but I don't see any reason to network this.

Obviously putting it on the cloud is an even worse idea.

This is how we got Uber and Lyft, and they may not be perfect but they're better than what we had before (crappy taxis if you're lucky, nothing in many places)

It turns out that if kids figure out they're being made to ride an extra half hour on the bus while it winds around its route and back the other way just so they don't have to cross the street, they'll start fibbing about the side they live on, or just getting off. And the driver won't always stop them.

If we're very lucky, we will only see linear increases in temperature. Far more likely, the ocean has been easing us into our dooms. Far more likely, immense amounts of carbon are going to come out of the world's permafrost, and increasing wildfires will add even more. Then we will see logarithmic growth in global temperatures.

Emphasis mine. LOL. You know that logarithmic is LESS than linear, right?

Many species of ants definitely do not avoid sugar. Having a sugar bowl infested with ants is a disgusting but common experience.

That wasn't *all* I said, but it is apparently as far as you read. But let's stay there for now. You apparently disagree with this, whnich means that you think that LLMs are the only kind of AI that there is, and that language models can be trained to do things like design rocket engines.

That's what I just said.

China's central bank has flagged stablecoins as a specific concern in its latest push against virtual currencies, warning that the tokens fail to meet requirements for customer identification and anti-money-laundering controls and risk being used for fraud, money laundering, and unauthorized cross-border fund transfers.

Isn't using it for that -- especially the latter two -- the whole point?

Here's where the summary goes wrong:

Artificial Intelligence is in fact many kinds of technologies. People conflate LLMs with the whole thing because its the first kind of AI that an average person with no technical knowledge could use after a fashion.

But nobody is going to design a new rocket engine in ChatGPT. They're going to use some other kind of AI that work on problems on processes that the average person can't even conceive of -- like design optimization where there are potentially hundreds of parameters to tweak. Some of the underlying technology may have similarities -- like "neural nets" , which are just collections of mathematical matrices that encoded likelihoods underneath, not realistic models of biological neural systems. It shouldn't be surprising that a collection of matrices containing parameters describing weighted relations between features should have a wide variety of applications. That's just math; it's just sexier to call it "AI".

This is just dumb. There are conflicts over water, but when you include incidents that are part of a larger conflict that is not over water (Israel/Palestinian or Ukraine/Russia), you're just swamping any insight you might have gotten with meaningless noise. This is obvious, so I assume they're not looking for signal but just trying to make a big number for some other reason.

The illusion of intelligence evaporates if you use these systems for more than a few minutes.

Using AI effectively requires, ironically, advanced thinking skills and abilities. It's not going to make stupid people as smart as smart people, it's going to make smart people smarter and stupid people stupider. If you can't outthink the AI, there's no place for you.

Big tech companies don't really know what to do with 10x engineers. 1x engineers they manage out or warehouse until the next layoff, 1.5x engineers get promoted, but when they get a 10x engineer they try to make them into something different. Typically this means taking them away from hands-on engineering and trying to get them to do things that are more "high impact", such as engineering management or tech leadership. If they're not good at these things this frustrates everyone involved. If they are... well, they've probably traded a 10x engineer for a 1x manager or tech lead, which likely isn't a good trade.

Most employees at big companies, including tech companies, don't innovate. They're not allowed to innovate, and if they try to do so they're told to keep working on their TPS reports or Jira tickets. Laying off such engineers won't reduce innovation at a big company.

The people big companies allow to innovate are either product/marketing types, or in tech companies people with titles like "principal" and "distinguished". Most of these people don't actually innovate either (and the innovation coming from the product/marketing types is usually bad), but occasionally you get people who can, and that's where all the innovation from big companies is.

If you want to innovate, become a founder. If you're at a big tech company, you can probably ask management and they'll tell you the same thing.

Thank you, National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers. But we've been hearing this song about underfunding for decades now and funding has gone up by massive amounts while education has not, in fact, gotten better.

This code was made available (if less than lawfully, nobody who matters complained) over ten years ago; I believe the conclusion of that story is here.