Copilot modifies PRs?

Very true. Though, honestly, the correction has worked so well that I often forget about it.

Of all of the criticisms leveled against arguments for or against AI, labeling your opponent's arguments as "science fiction" is by far the stupidest. It's a content-free criticism, just an attempt to imply that an argument you don't like is fantastical to avoid having to engage it on its merits.

No need to blame LLMs. Science reporting was always like this.

The telescope's proposed design includes a 94-inch-wide mirror, which is a significant upgrade from Hubble's 94.5-inch mirror

If you're confused as to how a 0.5 inch smaller mirror is an upgrade, the number is wrong. Lazuli's mirror is 3.1m (~122"), compared to Hubble's 2.4m (~94.5").

Well, it shouldn't, anyway. I'm not convinced that the current SCOTUS is anywhere near as non-partisan as we historically expect. As in, I think we might get very different rulings on issues of presidential power depending on who the president in question is. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that. If I'm not, and if an energetic and unconstrained Democrat gets elected to the White House we're going to have a civil war when that Democrat begins swinging the power of the presidency for progressive ends just as hard as Trump has been doing for, er, well, whatever Trump's ends are (they aren't conservative, certainly, nor really even populist).

I agree with this in general. Democrats tend to push the boundaries more, particularly with respect to redistribution of wealth. Again, though, the current administration is an extreme outlier; even more extreme than FDR. So much so that even though SCOTUS is bending over backwards for him, I think even they are going to reject a lot of what he's trying to do. They've been very willing to halt that extraordinary number of stays that lower courts have issued, temporarily blocking the administration's mind bogglingly-unconstitutional actions, but I remain hopeful that when it comes time to rule on the actual merits -- and to write logically-coherent opinions justifying their decisions -- they'll ultimately follow the law, at least most of the time.

OTOH, I never thought they'd declare the president to be above the law.

300mi is absolutely fine for the vast majority of Texans. There is a small minority who live in areas where highway charging infrastructure is still deficient and who also regularly need to drive longer distances than that, but not very many.

Actually, this might be an interesting exercise. What route do you regularly drive that wouldn't be feasible with a 300-mile range? I'll check and see if it actually wouldn't work.

A better solution is to do the same thing that should be done with stock trading: Require government officials (and their family members) who might have access to insider information to publish their trades in advance. The advance notice wouldn't even have to be large if the information was published electronically in a feed that could easily be monitored by other investors and the press. A couple of business days, maybe less. This should apply to all securities, real-estate purchases, predictions, etc., anything people speculate on. Not only would this highlight possible insider trading, it would erase most of the potential benefit of trading on inside information. It wouldn't harm government officials' legitimate investment opportunities.

It would still be possible for officials to pass tips to friends who are outside the group required to disclose their trades in advance, of course. It's ultimately very hard to stop that sort of thing, assuming the friends stay loyal, but that's a risky bet. Especially since the sort of friend who would engage in such illicit trading is probably the sort who might end up in some other sort of trouble with the law, and might find it convenient to flip on their buddy.

If it's the principle that's driving the decisions, not the affluence of the beneficiaries, across a sufficiently-large set of cases we'd expect to find no correlation between the political leanings of the justices and their votes benefiting wealthy vs poor people. Which is what the article said happened for many decades.

Unless, of course, the principle being applied is "Who benefits?"

It's worth pointing out that although gtall framed it as the Republicans siding with the wealthy, it's equally true that the Democrats are siding with the poor. Both sides are inordinately focused on who benefits.

His advisors told him that he wouldn't be able to get a cut. Not even a measly 5%.

I used HP/UX as a development platform in the mid-90s, cross-compiling to m68k boards running pSOS and VxWorks. It was a little weird, but rock solid, utterly reliable, as were the HP workstations it ran on.

The data shows that college improves your options and your income now. Who cares what effect it had 50 years ago?

That's funny. My EV is the vehicle of choice for long trips. Fuel costs are much lower than my ICEV, and long-distance travel makes that more important, not less.

Nah.

All that's required is that EVs be cheap. A 300-mile range is sufficient. When the purchase price of a car with a 300-mile range is at or only slightly above the purchase price of a comparable ICEV, EVs sales will explode because they're cheaper to operate and maintain. All of the range anxiety and concerns about fires (which are silly, since gasoline vehicles are a lot more prone to burning) will inhibit a few people, for a little while, but pretty soon they'll all have friends and relatives who are driving EVs and happy about it, and they'll start making the switch, too.

It's all about the benjamins.

They are if you tell them to search for the information.