Not to mention, as a kid playing Doom you either had to find the BFG or your friend Timâ(TM)s older brother could tell you the secret. Today, a million youtubers have already done full 100% letâ(TM)s plays, and every secret, 100% completion, unlock, etc., is a quick google or gpt search away.

I loved adventure games. The genre just isnâ(TM)t viable today. So many of the old hallmarks of games just donâ(TM)t work or make sense anymore. I donâ(TM)t even think thatâ(TM)s necessarily a bad thing. I can fire up SCUMMVM or an NES emulator or Dosbox if I have an itch to play those games.

Entertainment IS a brutal business.

American AI companies 'distilled' millions of works from the original authors, they dont like it? Tough.

Can I go now?

News at 11.

I credit most of SpaceX's success to CEO Gwen Shotwell. She keeps things going even when Musk is off on an irrelevant tear somewhere else.

Unfortunately, Musk seems to be on a path to sabotaging her efforts. The SpaceX prospectus showed that xAI (which bought Twitter, because why not?) was the reason they posted a loss in the last fiscal year. Even with all the expenditures on Starship, SpaceX would have been profitable. Like every other major AI company, it is not at all clear that xAI can reach profitability anytime in the near future, especially since xAI is blocked from so many enterprises and doesn't seem to be able to keep up with the big three at all. As Starship production scales up, the costs are going to increase, and they need payload revenue to offset those costs. There's so much focus now on the Pez dispenser and the lunar mission that I haven't seen any hints of the conventional payload delivery version (aka, "Chomper") in a couple of years. Maybe it's being quietly worked on. I hope so, because the big space station payloads that were talked about a few years ago will need it.

It seems like it should be just theming, but there's a separate architecture to it. Even the APIs are different, with new using a GraphQL-based API and old using a more traditional structure. The core data (users, posts, comments, etc.) is the same, but the pathways are completely different. New has links into capabilities that old doesn't have (especially around abuse and scraping), and old has capabilities that new doesn't always have (especially around mod tools, which new apparently breaks on a regular basis).

"Many users" is going to be relative. I saw some numbers recently that only around 1% of users go through Old Reddit, and in many of the largest subs, it's a fraction of a percent. I don't think it will have the impact that some people think. I prefer Old Reddit on desktop, but it's clunky on mobile, so I stick with the new interface (I don't use the app).

For global energy, that typically includes transportation. As more economies have expanded, there has been more use of cars, trucks, trains, ships, and aircraft, almost all of which are powered by fossil fuels.

Global electricity generation has changed. In 2000, 64.1% of global electricity came from fossil fuels, 16.7% came from nuclear, and 18.7% came from renewable. In 2023, despite overall electricity generation roughly doubling, fossil fuel generation was down to 60.1%, nuclear was down to 9.1%, and renewables were up to 30.23%. Looking at the renewable mixes, in 2000, it was 17.4% hydropower, 0.7% biofuels, 0.2% wind, 0.01% solar, and 0.3% geothermal. In 2023, it was 14.6% hydropower, 2.2% biofuels, 7.75% wind, 5.4% solar, and 0.3% geothermal.

That's still a lot of fossil fuel electricity generation, but it is declining by percentage and their growth curves are flattening. Renewables are up by quite a bit and still growing. Nuclear is declining, and isn't likely to recover in any meaningful numbers. This program is a lot like past programs meant to encourage new nuclear power plants. Odds are that maybe one will get started, and it might not get finished.

Construction isn't expected to start until 2030 at the earliest. From TFA:

By that time, the AI bubble may have burst, or the grid may have gone even further into renewables, or both.

We need more power, but nuclear isn't the way anymore. I was a supporter of nuclear until around 2020, when I saw how fast solar and wind were gaining. Both have consistently shown enormous growth because they are not as specific in their land requirements, can be installed in small numbers, and the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for them has plummeted to become profitable even without subsidies. Storage is still a challenge, but we're seeing rapid improvements in that, too, with sodium batteries rapidly catching up in capacity.

TFA says that construction on these won't start until at least 2030, and if they make that, it would be amazingly fast for how reactors are built these days. In that time, wind is expected to expand by almost 50 GW and solar by 40 GW. Battery storage is expected to almost quadruple in that time. By the time the reactors are built, they will be a tiny fraction of the new power generation installed and they will probably be the most expensive part of it.

It's just a reskinned VSCode, 99% of users probably dont even use Cursor's model.

"I want to use claude code to run 10 unattended Chrome beta testers [more info about what is being tested and specifics]. Write me one or more md files to execute and give me instructions for enabling Chrome mcp, then give me an sh script to launch 10 separate Chrome instances on macos."

I wrote that exact prompt, more or less, a month or two ago, and then other iterations since then, and it's been working very well.

Using LLMs to create prompts for LLMs to use was a good realization.

This makes me laugh! I see classes at universities and colleges on using AI. Not just in the tech arena either, I'm talking liberal arts--med school, law school, you name.

As best as I can tell, "how to use AI" is more or less "don't be a dumbass."

To be succesful with AI, you need the same skills you need to be successful otherwise. Analyze problems, test solutions, think critically, etc. Unattended vibe coding or turning in of AI slop is the same as people who cribbed essays, copied and pasted from Wikipedia, etc.

IMHO, you still need to be a developer to be able to use AI effectively. If you start with a really solid schema, or an existing framework, AI is great at building on top of that. If you give it specific guidance for what and how you want it to develop code, it can do a good job. It is NOT just "lol write me a network utility lol" -- that is a path to disaster.

I've also had good luck with updating and modernizing older code, migrating to a new frameework, and refactoring.

If i'm using claude code, my steps go something like this.

1. Using plan mode, analyze the code base, create a thorough plan and testing strategy for XYZ (Or I provide SQL schema, or I provide a thorough plan of what I want to do, etc.)
2. Refine Claude plan mlutiple times until I'm happy with it
3. Start with writing a set of unit tests to confirm current behavior
4. Implement the first part of the project (this is not coding the whole thing in one shot)
5. Run unit tests, check for regressions.\
6. Rinse and repeat..

Steps 1 and 2 -- with no code being written -- are probably the most important parts.

I should also add that, imo, this will be a relatively short moment in time. I've seen people who are spinning up dozens of agents at the same time -- backend designer, frontend designer, security consultant, css specialist, etc -- that all work together and iterate amongst themselves.

We've been running a beta test of some new software, and one beta tester out of ~30 people hit an error. We could not reproduce it. Claude took ~5 hours, but using Claude to remote control Chrome, in conjunction with analyzing the state of the backend database, and auditing the codebase, Claude was able to reproduce the error and suggest a fix. In this case, we disagreed with the fix (rather, we went for a bigger logical change as opposed to a bandaid), but we've had really great luck with using Claude Chrome mcp as a beta tester.

IAI hasn't build a fighter since the Dagger/Nesher that Israel sold to Argentina after the IAF was done with them. They tried to build an F-16 competitor, the Lavi, but stopped when the US refused to allow any funding to be used towards its development.

Israel likely has the technical capability to build a modern fighter. Whether it has the money to do so on its own is an entirely other matter.