No, that was the British. GCHQ, IIRC, actually came up with the encryption scheme GSM used.

Do you seriously think you're fooling anyone?

Maybe someone hacked it and someone else corrected it? This text is in Wikipedia right now:

> Venus has retrograde rotation, meaning that unlike most planets, including Earth, it rotates clockwise around its own axis, opposite to its anticlockwise rotation around the Sun. Therefore, Venusian sidereal day, 243 Earth days, lasts longer than a Venusian year, 224.7 Earth days.

It's the number of earth days it takes to rotate around its own axis, not around the Sun. So one Venus day = 248 Earth days, one Venus year is 225 Earth days. Yes, Venus has a day that's longer than its year.

> Because it's the default in most cases and it's fast with extremely good memory usage.

Neither of these are true.

As far as defaults go: Windows defaults to Edge, you need to use Edge to download Chrome. MacOS defaults to Safari, you have to use Safari to download Chrome. And the GNU/Linux distros I use default to Firefox and require administrator involvement to install Chrome, which generally seems wonky to me (the install, not the application - typically it starts complaining after a few months about not being updated, and the repo won't work until it's redone, which is odd.)

(In fairness, Chromium is provided on most GNU/Linux distros, and probably good enough for 99% of stuff you'd use Chrome for, but still...)

Is it fast with extremely good memory usage? Not as far as I can see. It may succeed at some benchmarks, but I don't sense in any way that it feels faster than Firefox. And it's a massive memory hog, worse than Firefox (if that's possible) to the point that to make it work on Chromebooks they had to introduce that tab-unloading feature, which... makes the browser slower. Isn't an entire point of tabs that you're not reloading pages?

(It doesn't even do it well, why not at least save the state of the tab, rather than load the page from scratch?)

So... no, the question as to why people still use Chrome has an even weirder answer than many of the other "Why are people still using..." questions.

There's no reason why Windows users shouldn't be using Edge, for example. It's no worse than Chrome performance or memory wise, and it saves a step using it instead of downloading Chrome.

Don't know, but the headline says "Moon", not "moon" even if TFA lowercases it. And TFA says "strange 248-day rotation", which only makes sense if you assume they mean Earth days, not Venusian or days of any other planet. So I would assume you're supposed to use Earth equivalents as a reference, which is what you'd expect for something written for a general audience, not an audience of nit pickers ;P

It's depressing to see the amount of corporate bootlicking here, but Slashdot can always be relied upon as a forum for bootlickers to lick boots.

FWIW, if someone buys something and it has a feature, that's it. End of story. You don't get to take that feature away any more than you get to modify soccer balls so they can't be used for volleyball after they left the store.

AMD cannot be trusted. And you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise.

they don't have to make a profit on the investment. The investment is defensive. The goal is not to be outside the moat.

instead of explaining to my boss why he caught me spinning on my chair and stacking office supplies into Jenga towers as "I'm waiting for the compiler to finish" I can now tell him I'm waiting for claude to get back to me.

I was looking forward to tokenising the Swiss citizen. There would be fewer of them than bitcoins and not growing in populations, so by the same logic bitcoinETF use they would appreciate. And they are even backed by gold. Dang.. I'd have made a fortune.

> In neither case do you need to check from scratch. You already know what you wanted. Did it do it or not? That's easy to verify.

Just to be clear, you're suggesting the way to test a program is to just run it once and see if it did what you wanted?

Have you ever done software development? Because that's not how it works. In the real world we do unit testing, code reviews, and other things to try to catch every bug. And, believe me, it's a hell of a lot easier to do those things if you already understand what the code was trying to do than when you get it given to you by a third party that doesn't even understand how to write understandable code.

Basically AI made the chore part harder and the fun part non-existent.

> it is relieving workers of tedious old chores but creating new ones

If it were relieving workers of tedious old chores, it'd probably be more popular.

From what I can see it's doing the fun parts and leaving the shit parts - us checking it did it correctly - to us.

I went into programming because I enjoyed programming. I would imagine that's true of 99% of programmers. You know what's boring? Checking the code afterwards.

Maybe if the genAI companies found ways to use their technology to automate actual chores, like washing up, cleaning the house, or even (not always!) doing the cooking when we come home exhausted, and driving when our idiot bosses force us to do work at an office, instead of programming, making "art", and stealing shit and rewriting it 100 different ways, it'd be more popular and actually a net positive for the world. People might even spend money on it!

If genAI is truly as intelligent as its addicts claim, that ought to be easy, right?

You're taking an article that has clearly exaggerated the degree to which genAI "solved" an issue, promoting an genAI model that's widely mocked even among genAI addicts, and ignoring the massive negative externalities, and saying that somehow promotes the idea AI is perfect and all the AI critics are wrong*?

Where does your example address the externalities?

Why are you taking the TFA at face value, when literally every article puffing genAI here in the past has turned out to be massively exaggerating genAI's contribution to solving a specific problem? (Or massively exaggerated the degree to which anything was solved.)

* If you're about to claim I misquoted you, perhaps you should look at what the genAI critics are saying rather than strawmanning them as you did above. I wrote it that way intentionally.

It's also lost its hype operation. People who used to boost it from Marc Andreessen to Peter Thiel are now boosting AI instead. Even Slashdot now rarely has an article on crypto, instead posting breathless puff pieces about genAI. Of course it's going to lose value without the same group of idiots, nutters, and con-artists boosting it.

OK guys, I think it's pretty obvious in context we're talking about generative AI here? Eliza (and Lisp) are not examples of that. AI had a very broad meaning once, from expert systems to neural nets, but right now it's pretty much exclusively being used to refer to generative AI.

Secondly, even if we weren't, the Emacs position is about maintenance of its code base. It does not want "AI" code contributions, falling into the same category as the maintainers of Open Slopware's domain.