I think youâ€(TM)re a bit confused. Part of the issue Americans bring it up is because they want acceleration demons. Most cars can actually get to highway speeds but they canâ€(TM)t do it in 4 seconds.

In fact, in the U.S. the 0-60 time is a huge marketable property of vehicles, or it was anyway. I donâ€(TM)t watch tv anymore to get ads. That is what sold early Teslas here was showing it could do 0-60 in 3 seconds.

It was at least one of the few highly marketable selling points next to safety ratings. As gas became more expensive fuel economy became more important.

People here are acting like bigger vehicles in the U.S. are due to some conspiracy around efficiency standards. Theyâ€(TM)re not. Almost everyone I know who purchased larger vehicles over the last 2 decades, (I prefer smaller cars, mid-size sedan and smaller); every single person quoted to me that they felt larger vehicles were safer. Whether that was actually true or not I donâ€(TM)t know. But certainly folks insisted they were.

I suspect the â€oebeing safer†part had more to do with â€oeimposing size on the road†more than anything. But dunno.

If their computers don't have RGB lights that make their hacking go faster, I'm going to be disappointed.

Read the article, the article itself contains literally zero substance. Was the post itself written by an LLM? LOL.

Deep diving a little bit here:

The following blurb from the article:
"In regard to space propulsion, reinforcement learning generally falls into two categories: those that assist during the design phase – when engineers define mission needs and system capabilities – and those that support real-time operation once the spacecraft is in flight."

Immediately followed up with:
"Among the most exotic and promising propulsion concepts is nuclear propulsion, which harnesses the same forces that power atomic bombs and fuel the Sun: nuclear fission and nuclear fusion."

How do these two statements connect? Where's the linking conversation? Where's the part in this article that states that they're using reinforcement learning to develop nuclear fission and fusion? They make a statement, and then immediately pivot to discussing nuclear propulsion technology.

The article dives down a bunch more into nuclear prop, but then says again:

"This area is where reinforcement learning has proved to be essential. Optimizing the geometry and heat flow between fuel and propellant is a complex problem, involving countless variables"

And then discusses how "reinforcement learning *CAN* do these things", but provides absolutely 0 examples in the article about how it has been used in any development of any rocket hardware.

Again, from the article,

"Reinforcement learning also plays a key role in developing nuclear fusion technology. Large-scale experiments such as the JT-60SA tokamak in Japan are pushing the boundaries of fusion energy, but their massive size makes them impractical for spaceflight"

How has reinforcement learning "played a key role" in developing the JT-60SA tokamak? Or shrinking it?

"That’s why researchers are exploring compact designs such as polywells. "

Again, no statement of how reinforcement learning is being used to develop polywells.

The entire fucking article feels like it was written by AI to make dumb people think they're learning something.

I know these wonks want you to believe that it's the case, but the reality is that AI cannot replace human thought and ingenuity in its current form. LLMs are fundamentally not capable of doing this--as their inputs are the apex of human thought.

An LLM is a glorified search engine. It can be generally better at scoping out a stack overflow or Reddit post better than you can to find the relevant bits, but that's about it. That's all it can do. So in that it can take already *existing* knowledge that all of the LLM companies have illegally scraped from the internet and regurgitate to you for the time being without throwing ads in the mix is about the only thing it's useful for.

Holy hell these people are on drugs.

By definition of the United States Constitution, The United States Government (this includes ICE) does not have the right to search you, which includes searching your identity information.

If you're inside the country, unless you're doing something wrong, they have no right to simply track you within a database for 15 years? This right is enjoyed by both citizens and non-citizens alike.

Now, what they DO have a right to do is obtain warrants for individuals that they have documented of violating the law or suspected of violating the law. Signed by a judge.

Walking up to you with a cell phone camera and biometrically identifying you is not even close to something they should have the power to do, and when the Democrats regain power should shut this down as soon as possible.

These features already do exist for Teams calls, but it requires you to have the correct Teams Premium licensing for the person running the call, and requires them to enable the feature and provide a sensitivity label for the meeting.

Most companies do not purchase nor use all of Microsoft's security features.

#1 implies that they have a warrant they're charging you with in the first place.

#2 would probably still be bypassed by Cellebrite.

Quite literally your god emperor king trump has kicked out the press from the DOD unless they tote the party line, tried to kick Jimmy Kimmel off the air, kicked off Stephen Colbert from the air.

Spare me the "free speech, first amendment" bullshit.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from PRIVATE consequences. Not using the government to strongarm companies for whatever speech you deem appropriate by threatening to pull their FCC licenses.

"Anonymous Coward" about sums up MAGA.

That does not mean we should not continue to preach it. Because we should all use it as a guiding north star to continue the march of progress.

This reads like an ad to get folks to move to SASE solutions, which arguably may often be less secure for remote authentication into your network than a traditional VPN solution.

One area I've seen fall short in authentication between SASE solutions and say, Palo Alto's GlobalProtect VPN is GlobalProtect *in addition* to a SAML flow will also do a client certificate validation flow. And this works with hardware-backed private keys on TPMs in Windows (using the Microsoft Platform Crypto Provider). SASE solutions are very often pure IDP only, and what the access token says, the SASE will deliver. I'm not saying GlobalProtect is good (it's really god awful tbh), but in this specific regard it offers a little more connection verification beyond blindly trusting an access token in a world where token theft is becoming more and more of a problem.

Beyond that, the rest is fluff, really. A SASE solution can be configured poorly just as much as a VPN/Firewall can be. There's also the inevitable world where a vendor platform like Tailscale could eventually be compromised and all of your issued wireguard keys between systems are downloaded and exploited.

There's no "perfect" solution out there. There's only proper security. You can do good or bad security with traditional firewalls/VPNs or SASE solutions. And the security of both is an evaluation of what your organization is willing to put the work into maintaining. As called out in the original post, "and aren't integrated into centralized logging solutions" isn't a technical problem with the device, but an implementation problem with engineering.

I think it's time Microsoft replaces Nadella. He's failing in the same way that Ballmer failed, which is suffering from extreme FOMO on literally any and every new hype coming out while ignoring the rug pulling that's slowly gaining steam beneath him.

Open source solutions for most things have surpassed Microsoft's Windows Server platform to the point that Windows Server is effectively dead except in very specific circumstances. Over the next decade that will continue to grow to be a thing, and further financial investment in open source platforms will eventually catch up to cloud products as over time people and companies continue to invest in developing on-premises solutions to replace the ones Microsoft is ignoring.

We are starting to see the cracks in cloud compute. On-premises compute support is growing again as companies realize it's actually cheaper to run all of this random bullshit on some shared hardware than to spend tens of thousands of dollars per month on cloud compute spend.

Sovereign clouds are growing and becoming more of a thing. And the day that Microsoft, AWS, or Google is forced by the United States government to turn over information in a European cloud to the US government will spell the end for massive generalized cloud computing. These major cloud vendors ignored the fact that they've been riding the coattails of trust the world has had in the United States government to trend towards more progress and freedom. And that's clearly not going to be the case anymore.

Broadcom's push to basically force everyone off of VMWare is massively modernizing software which companies still want to run on-premises but moving them all to bare metal k8s nodes. Reducing VMWare licensing will have a direct impact on how many Windows servers exist across the world.

Nadella has put next to no investment in Windows except for chasing AI bullshit. Which itself is already showing cracks with Meta's recent layoffs in AI.

All of this focus on AI and Cloud, both of which are going to be massively reduced over the next 10 years, along with modernizing software to run in containers and getting away from traditional VMs driven by Broadcom's licensing onsense, will make Microsoft virtually irrelevant as soon as someone releases a comparable Office and Exchange stack you can run on-prem again.

Clearly the programmers haven't woken up yet :)

The hypothesis is probably a correct one, although I am still wondering exactly where AI will land in the grand scheme of things.

It's obvious the intention of management types is to replace highly skilled engineers with lower paid vibe coders. The MBAs would love nothing more than that. But as the author hypothesized, I'm guessing the most high folks will be the entry level positions. Exactly where that lands, I'm not sure. Is it a 10% replacement? 5%? 25%? Will we ultimately not change the number of engineers needed and just their overall output goes up by a few points? My guess is the latter, and definitely not this promised utopia of "we can finally not hire all of these overpaid software engineers!". Just like this ultimately didn't happen with the cloud + BYOD shift in the 2010s. The largest push for cloud, devops, and BYOD was to get rid of both on-prem datacenters AND to get rid of IT folks. But what ultimately happened is that software development organizations realized that IT operations is a distinct set of skills, so instead they created the "SRE"--which is a fancily-renamed operations person in a software development org. Oh, and the average SRE makes 2-3x as much money as the IT ops folks they replaced.

  Given the way LLMs work I highly doubt wholesale replacing entire large chunks of software engineers is going to be a thing anytime soon. Most interestingly is the fact that LLMs can only know what we have already put out there, and we'll basically need to continually train newer models with more information. As technology changes, give it another 5-10 years, and today's LLMs may be in fact completely useless. Particularly as sites like Stack Overflow's knowledge becomes more obsolete.

I liken LLMs to the know-it-all at a bar. They speak like they know everything about everything, but you're just trying to get drunk in a bar and don't feel like correcting them. They might have most of the answers to that night's trivia game, but if you deep dive any particular area they're going to make up a bunch of bullshit to avoid saying "I don't know." Unfortunately (or fortunately?) the world doesn't run on such people. Jim Bob's trivia knowledge doesn't architect and engineer buildings, bridges, roads, nor would you trust him for the bar's financials. You don't ask Jim Bob how many drinks you sold in a night, "oh around 1000 or so" when your livelihood depends on knowing that you actually sold 1315 drinks. And the rest of the world isn't going to let you use Jim Bob's guesstimates to pay your taxes, "Well Jim Bob said we sold around 1000 drinks so we paid taxes on 1000 drinks worth of income!"

There's going to be *some* AI impact, but I doubt it'll be as revolutionary as the smart phone.

Yep. There could be any number of motivations by the assassin, not the least of which because he's got some screws loose in his head that someone needs to adequately diagnose. Any motive beyond "wtf is wrong with that guy?" is politicization of the situation. We have barely enough information to determine that the guy disliked CK for some sort of reason, but beyond that we have no idea.

Anyone who claims otherwise is speculating on what the motive is, no doubt amplified by our idiotic fucking FBI leadership and US government leadership.

Damn we are becoming tech illiterate as fuck.

If you actually give a damn about security, encourage whistleblowers and journalists to get yubikeys and generate PGP keys and communicate that way. Encrypt e-mails.

Signal offers a decent alternative for less painful secure communications. But PGP is definitively the way to go if you want to securely share information.