Last time I checked supertankers are not very useful on roads.

You seem confused. The GP was talking about a claim that the range reduces to 200 miles when there is a trailer and cargo. Which is bogus.

Your like is just a confirmation by Grok that 833 of these plugged in at once will use all the power of a typical nuclear reactor which I suspect he agrees with.

If for some reason the computer can't do this, the foreman or a helper can get in the truck and drive it to the correct location manually. Or (more likely imho) some kid in Korea will drive it remotely. In any case, the long-distance trucker is out of a job.

The ID proves who the holder of the ID is, and then they look him up in their database of who is a citizen.

This "Real ID does not mean citizenship" idea is being repeated over and over again here, seems to be a concerted effort to try to discredit this story.

Whatâ(TM)s interesting here is that as a professional musician, this guy is a public figure and the âoeactual maliceâ standard for defamation applies â" a standard that was designed when defamation could only be done by a human being.

This requires the defendant to make a defamatory statement either (1) knowing it is untrue or (2) with reckless disregard for the truth.

Neither condition applies to the LLM itself; it has no conception of truth, only linguistic probability. But the LLM isnâ(TM)t the defendant here. Itâ(TM)s the company offering it as a service. Here the company is not even aware of the defamatory statement being made. But it is fully aware of their modelâ(TM)s capacity to hallucinate defamatory âoefactsâ.

I think that because the tort is based in the common law concept of a duty of care, we may well see the company held liable in some way for this kind of thing. But itâ(TM)s new law; it could go the other way.

After the mind-blowing success of the windows "are you sure you want to move the mouse?" confirmation dialogs, these people really thought that warning messages do anything? Who is advising these people? Why are they getting paid? Or was their actual contract to provide something with minimal effort that they can use to claim "we're doing something! pinky swear!" ?

This. It's a good indicator, actually. If layoffs include management (the part of a company most prone to accumulating useless overhead) and mostly excludes the departments actually creating the product the company sells, then they might actually be useful.

A major company in my home country just did that. After 20+ years of going down the drain, a new CEO has started the usual layoffs, but this time the first thing she did was cut the board of directors in half. And for the first time in 20+ years I'm thinking "maybe something will actually change for the better".

That is correct. We've been using smileys for 50+ years.

The difference is that smileys convey a bit of emotional add-on to a factual message expressed in proper words. They are the equivalent of a raised eyebrow or a smile - which are also not expressions of specific meanings but context to the words you are saying.

Yes, but it did not have very specific meanings. A smiley - any smiley - indicated that you're not too serious and factual. Slightly different interpretations of what ;-) means compared to ,-) didn't make a difference to the actual message because that message was still in the text and the smiley just added a bit of emotion.

And frankly speaking, given how subjective and unclear emotions tend to be, NOT having a specific meaning is probably the best way to express emotions.

Yes, but we didn't particularly intend a very specific meaning. The fact that there was a :-) or any of its variations was the sign that I'm not meaning this too seriously. Your interpretation of the fine details doesn't matter much.

I do. I've code-reviewed code with emoji (in the comments). It does nothing to improve readability.

I would add: Use the language that the recipient understands. If your best friend understands your emoji - fine. But if you talk to someone you don't know that will, use these things we invented recently that really make it very clear what you mean. You know, when pictograms failed civilization the first time and we wanted something better, more clear... I think it's called "words".

Well, yes.

I'm still editing that first manuscript after copying everything into a digital file. Yes, it takes quite a bit of editing. :-)

The laborious, linear interface is of course another limitation of all kinds of tapes -- digital or analog. But getting rid of this also changes human behavior. People don't listen as much to long form collections; they don't even necesssarily listen to entire songs.

A mix tape is essentially a long format program manually and personally curated for you by another human being, unmediated and indeed untracked by any third corporate party. Losing the mix tape was a real cultural loss. Sure they didn't sound great, but they didn't have to.

I suppose every technological advance is potentially double edged. When people get books and literacy, verbal storytelling declines. That doesn't make books bad. the technical limitations of verbal stories -- say limited repeatbility -- are real limitations, but that doesn't mean something wasn't lost.

So according to the article, I'm a superstar employee.

Never went back to the office after Covid. Have no plans of ever doing that again.

Yes, my books.

Maybe not better by literary standards, but better for me. I would have never published anything if word processing didn't exist. I know that for a fact, because my very first manuscript, which I wrote by hand in three notebooks, is still unpublished. 25 years after I wrote it.

It's not the writing per se that's easier, but the editing. And a book takes a lot of editing before it's done.