That response sounds like "Yup, we're doing it. but by arbitrary definitions we keep your data safe and only use it for our marketing purposes, as detailed three layers down into the user agreement you clicked through"

Hey! I know! For every Ford Super Duty sold, just throw in a 10-speed bicycle.

What's the fleet average of 20 MPG and infinity?

The only decent thing to do is to keep these anonymized. If they become public record every bit of personal information entered into chat GPT will be public knowledge. SSNs. ID card scans. affairs. mental problems. Health problems. There shouldn't even be a question here.

https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-...
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."

This is the purest illustration of rule by committee. It beautifully illustrates how competing interests result into something that's somehow worse for almost all involved than doing nothing. On paper, the goals sounded noble: Reduce emissions from fleets. Avoid crushing small businesses that genuinely need work trucks. Nudge consumers toward cleaner, more efficient vehicles.

In practice, CAFE is an abomination. They created a loophole big enough to drive a Ford Super Duty through, and then the automakers did exactly that. A quick recap for anyone who has not followed this saga since the 1990s:
here has long been a dual standard: one for "passenger cars" and a more lenient one for "light trucks", the latter including pickups, vans, and sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) That classification created what many call the "SUV loophole." In effect, a vehicle that might, in all practical respects, resemble a car but classified as a "light truck" could escape the stricter fuel-economy and emissions constraints applicable to cars.

Because automakers must meet only a fleet-wide average, not each vehicle individually, this gives a strong incentive to produce and sell more of the looser-regulated "light trucks." Light trucks with poor fuel economy can be balanced in the fleet average if the manufacturer sells enough efficient cars (or EVs, nowadays) but with the loophole, upsized SUVs or trucks became a rational choice. This dynamic has been identified in economic analyses of CAFE's impact on the US vehicle market. this does not prove that every driver of an SUV did so because of regulations. Consumer preferences, marketing, and cultural factors also matter. But the regulatory structure plainly created a meaningful incentive for automakers to shift production toward heavier, less-efficient but more profitable SUVs and light trucks. When the consumers must choose either vehicles too small for winter, families, and vacations or a behemoth because there's no actual light pickup pr large sedan on the lot, they're not picking the smaller one.

And let's not pretend it's all an innocent mistake. The automotive lobby absolutely noticed what these overlapping rules made possible and spent years making sure the loopholes stayed open. Millions of dollars flowed into Congressional campaigns to ensure that "light truck" definitions remained comically broad. Tighter average fuel economy numbers or looser ones will do nothing to fix this. The whole scheme needs to be undone.

It can be a version of make work for the US, and I would argue it should be: work that isn't as productive as the market demands people be to be employed, but will in the future make enough by a huge margin to pay for it. These tech layoffs should be working on robotics.

That's actually a good question. Inks have changed somewhat over the past 5,000 years, and there's no particular reason to think that tattoo inks have been equally mobile across this timeframe.

But now we come to a deeper point. Basically, tattoos (as I've always understand it) are surgically-engineered scars, with the scar tissue supposedly locking the ink in place. It's quite probable that my understanding is wrong - this isn't exactly an area I've really looked into in any depth, so the probability of me being right is rather slim. Nonetheless, if I had been correct, then you might well expect the stuff to stay there. Skin is highly permeable, but scar tissue less so. As long as the molecules exceed the size that can migrate, then you'd think it would be fine.

That it isn't fine shows that one or more of these ideas must be wrong.

New hardware. You don't think Microsofthas financial ties to system manufacturers?

Tell that to Fred Meyer. It turns out that they will probably be rewarded for closing stores in high crime areas, passing the savings on to their wealthier and less likely to shoplift, suburban customers.

Can you let Tim Cook know that?

I'm an Apple fan, but the money they charge for internal storage is ridiculous, especially given that I can buy an external SSD with 2 TB for like $150 if I shop around a bit.

The cynic in me wants to say that they see "intelligence" and go "great, it has something I don't, let's just 100% trust it".

The social critic in me wants to say that it's due to the gigantic hype about AI and how it'll revolutionize everything, replace everyone and solve all problems.

And the tech/security guy in me wants to say "doh, people do dumb shit. What else is new?"

Ingress NGINX controller is being retired.

A viable, maintained alternative is NGINX Ingress Controller.... Totally different project....

To make his suggestion at *least* vaguely closer to reasonable, even if not there, could just say text will be in the phonetic scripts. So maybe not Kanji, but sure, Hiragana and Katakana.

If it is true that no one will reasonably provide fonts for cheap to cover the thousands of Kanji, you could still be in native language with a manageable scope by sticking to the phonetic scripts.

AI isn't a junior dev. It's an intern. Someone who doesn't much care beyond the current session, and whose skills can surprise you - in both directions, and whose primary focus is that you like him at least in the moment.

And like an intern, if you include the code in anything even close to production without review, it's your fault, not theirs.

My observation is the opposite. In my 20s tattoos were just common enough to be accepted as normal, but the majority of people didn't have them and most people who did had one or two fairly small ones.

Today, it seems everyone and their dog has them.