LLMs seem like a fairly appropriate pick if hallucinations are the point of the exercise.

You can still get Nickel-iron batteries today for applications that suit them. You might find the energy density of under .1 MJ/kg to be a little bit of a downer vs. more like .3 for nickel metal hydride; or .7 for lithium chemistries.

The sheer magnitude of the difference in patent numbers makes me wonder about what the difference in culture or regulatory environment about patent filing are.

Especially if you are talking companies in similar contexts, or same company today vs. 5 years ago vs. 10 years ago, or talking broad orders of magnitude, number of patents is presumably a better than useless metric; but "The two biggest companies have 7 patents" looks a lot more like someone doesn't even care to have a patent attorney throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Especially if you don't actually move to try to enforce them standards for examination are not just desperately high; and there's absolutely no requirement that whatever you are applying for a patent on is an improvement over existing methods; just that it's novel. The intern's vaguely cute idea that is 20 years behind the state of the industry won't be relevant; but it might still be patentable.

None of this is to say that I have reason to believe that they aren't considerably behind on tech; but '7' is just so low it suggests you aren't even bothering. That's the sort of thing where individual products that have no innovations worth mentioning probably have more 'apparatus and method for doing some obvious nonsense; but on a battery charge controller' patents than two entire battery companies have.

Why ask whether china is eroding the lead; rather than whether the incumbents are maintaining it?

Maybe my faith is weak and if I were huffing the dumb money I'd understand; but it looks awfully like our boisterous little hypebeasts promised that, this time, unlike all the other times in 'AI' we could totally brute force our way to the AGI Omnissiah; briefly tried copium in the form of hoping that competitors would be intimidated by their capex(because there's basically a generation of VCs who think that failure to reach monopoly is indistinguishable from losing); and finally proceeded to speedrun commodification because it turns out that nobody actually had any plan for what would happen if this alley started looking visually impaired even after we plundered the entire internet to feed it.

I realize that it's more fun to focus on what the sinister chinese are doing than what our glorious golden boys are not doing; but let's do the latter anyway; especially since this is one area where you can't just please chinese factory slaves as an inherent price advantage. The guys mechanical-turking out 'training'/'classification' tasks will all go wherever to scrape up the cheapest labor available, then stiff them on promised payments; and (while the process is pretty porous) being not-china is definitely still the best way to get access to premium TSMC processes; and at least not-worse for most of the rest of the most interesting ones.

Either LLMs are fundamentally a technology where being the first mover is a dumb idea; or the 'leaders' are actively fucking it; because, unlike some of the cases involving rare earths mining or finding fast fashion sweatshop sites, this was theirs to lose.

I assume that there's a research OS somewhere that has discovered that this is much harder than it looks for anything nontrivial; quite possibly even worse than the problem that it is intended to cure; but looking at the increasingly elaborate constructs used when sudo is intended to be a granular delegation makes me wonder if the correct approach lies down the path of better permissions rather than ad-hoc lockdown logic.

There are some cases(eg. password-change or login tools often both reflect granularity limits in credential storage; and make reads or edits on your behalf to parts of files that you wouldn't be allowed to touch directly; but also do things like enforce complexity or age requirements that would require a really expansive view of 'permissions' to encompass) where the delegate program is handling nontrivial delegation logic on its own; but in a lot of instances it's hard to escape the impression that you are basically bodging on 'roles' that can't be or aren't normally expressed in object and device permissions by building carefully selectively broken tools.

I obviously don't blame sudo for that; its scope is letting you run a particular thing as someone else if the sudoers file allows it; but a lot of sudoers files might as well just say "there are no roles on this system between 'useless' and 'apocalyptic'"; and that feels like a permissions design problem.

Of note; probably not one to try to NT yourself out of; I'm not sure that you can build a sufficiently expressive set of permissions on classic UNIX style ones; but I've yet to see an NT-derived system that didn't boil down to 'admin-which-can-be-SYSTEM-at-a-whim'/'little people' regardless of the wacky NT ACL tricks you can get up to.

I'm curious if it's a case of the alternatives being tried and largely found to be worse; or if (along with a number of other OS design/architecture fights) the whole thing has mostly been pushed out of mainstream relevance by the degree to which you can just pretend everything inside a worker VM is basically at a homogeneous privilege level if you don't want to deal with it.

I can't comment on where sudo itself lives on the spectrum from aggressively solid implementation to really-dodgy-smell-around-the-edges; but it seems like its purpose is a fundamentally tricky problem even if its execution were impeccable.

The basic "user is authorized for root; but we'd prefer he be thinking and logged when he uses that authorization" is reasonably cogent use case; but it's more of a reminder than a security barrier. Then you get into the actually-interesting attempts at limited delegation and determine that you'd basically need a different userland for a lot of purposes: aside from the modest number of things(often with setuid already in place) built specifically to carefully do a very particular delegated function on your behalf and provide you with nothing else if they can help it; very little aside from garbage kiosk UIs or web or database-backed applications with user and permission structures mostly orthogonal to those of the underlying OS actually tries to constrain the user's use of the application(within whatever context that user is operating; generally having a privilege escalation is considered bad).

Half of what you run considers having an embedded shell to be a design feature; so including any of that on the sudoers list essentially means being able to chain arbitrary commands from that sudoers entry; and the other half doesn't outright intend to include a shell but would require some really brutal pruning, likely of important features, to prevent being able to chain a couple of interactions into having the ability to run whatever. And that is assuming that sudo itself is working entirely correctly.

I always look to people with degrees in 'community development' to tell me whether there are enough spooks in my computer science or not; it's just good sense.

If it's dissociality and/or disinhibition without an LLM fetish it's just an ICD-11 personality disorder.

Saying that, much less in public in a way that suggests you either think that it will be helpful or that people will view you as being helpful, seems like strong evidence of an AICD-11 personality disorder.

Why, exactly, are we listening to someone who passed through software engineering on his way into management claiming that software engineers(presumably now his direct reports) are the most spoiled profession and how it's just terrible that nobody is willing to spend several years working for peanuts to get experience(because the argument from race to the bottom is persuasive now?)

He then meanders over to the theory that if you are a real actually-good software engineer your job is clearly safe, because AI isn't set to replace you; ignoring the fact that entire teams, competent and all, get wiped out when the money sloshes a different way all the time; and 'AI' has seen some cataclysmic levels of frankly irrational money sloshing by some mixture of conmen, cultists, and the good old 'animal spirits' of that definitely rational market.

It's basically the same story about 'web developers' who learned how to knock together some HTML at a bootcamp somewhere, or 'IT' back when that was something where the money attracted some people who had no interest, warmed over and presented as novel; with a side helping of boundless(but notably vague) optimism about all the cool new AI-things that are being created that will need real engineers at some point.

Honestly, it's almost impressive how he manages to be so grating while being so vacuous.

The word "seems" in the sentence "They are drawn to it because they feel burned by the traditional system and want a fresh start with something that seems more modern and less manipulative." is so load-bearing I can only hope that the author is also a structural engineer.

To a darkly hilarious extent 'fintech' is more or less entirely regulatory arbitrage with a light skin of 'apps'.

So, on the minus side we've got people trying to game the system. On the more-minus side; the way they are trying to game the system suggests that peer review has, at least in part, been farmed out to chatbots because it's easier. Fantastic.

"A tandem charge the size of a solar system" isn't really the reassuring correction I was hoping for; to be honest.

Thankfully, you can sustain national greatness just by shouting belligerently about it; the idea that you actually need competence or execution is just a con; so this should have no side effects whatsoever.

Probably not great news that someone further up the Kardashev scale remains a fan of double tap strikes.