As if interstate/international business doesn't already involve keeping track of which timezone the other party's in?

I'd note that eliminating Daylight Saving Time doesn't require Congressional involvement. Any state can do it by simply declaring they will no longer use DST. Then they're on standard time all year, no changing clocks anymore. It's only eliminating Standard Time and going to DST all year that requires Congressional action.

As for daylight hours, for most of the year we get plenty of sunlight hours in the evening even on standard time. Between eliminating the headaches of the clock change twice a year and the demonstrated improvements from better alignment with normal sleep cycles, that seems to outweigh the short-term complaints about going to all-year standard time. People always complain about any change regardless, we'd hear the same complaints about switching to all-year DST, so I don't see any merit in considering the complaints qua complaints when deciding. The basis of the complaints, yes, but those boil down to "I don't like it." and only apply to a few weeks once a year (at the other switch the complainers get more of their preference) and that's not a very solid basis for ignoring the benefits.

I'm sure I'll get torn apart for this, but there are many cases where the AI mode does a significantly better job of searching, and is much more capable. Recent example:

Every week my son's school sends an email with a list of colleges visiting along with dates and times. My son wants to find schools with a degree in XYZ, which is a bit specialized. I type "Which of these schools have a degree in XYZ?" then hit paste. The AI parses the email (which is formatted for a human and includes irrelevant information about the visit), then produces a bulleted list, with links to the page for that specific degree. That would have taken me 10+ searches. And since each school calls the degree something slightly different, it would take even more.

The thing to look for is how they go about solving a problem. That's the key. Coding is easy. Figuring out what the problem is and how to go about solving it, that's the hard part. Especially given that the problem the user says they need solved is often not the problem they actually have.

> You cannot sit down and ask an AI to write you anything long and complex and expect it to do so successfully without ... ... a lot of debugging. With practice, it can do long and complex and succcessful, and do so in less time than it would take to write it yourself.

It will still take a *lot* of debugging. It will be at least an order of magnitude longer than the time it took to write it, and the last 10% of production ready will take 90% of your time. But, it can still be significantly faster than writing it yourself.

Grade homework on completion and be done with it. Then schedule in-class quizzes and exams, where students are expected to show their work as well as the results and do it hand-written. That makes it hard to access chatbots, and even if students do the drudgery of transcribing the chatbot's output will discourage them (if they were willing to do that much work, they wouldn't be trying to skip the work using a chatbot). They may skate by on the homework, but the exam scores will show whether they actually learned the material or not.

Yes it does, but video games are different. Nobody downloads an "update" for their movie that removes scenes or disables it. That is where the Stop Killing Games movement really should focus. It should be illegal to send out a patch that neuters the game, then announce version 2 of the game is on sale for $50.

It's not tech, it's the people who've decided that their need to dominate the market justifies repeatedly harassing those who refuse their unwanted advances until they get the victim to relent, to answer the question in a compromised state, or to slip up. And if the victim is superhumanly steadfast, they take it anyway. When I see UI elements like that, I call the company and its employees rapists, and I'm not wrong.

The *WHIPLASH* of these two statements:

'Improvements to LinkedIn's detection systems have resulted in a 40% decline in views of content classified as AI slop, the platform said last month. That's not to say LinkedIn is entirely opposed to AI, Roth said, adding that "not everyone is a born communicator."'

YET -

'Roth said. "A lot of times now today, they'll run it through Claude or Gemini or wherever, they'll post it on LinkedIn and it will perform poorly. And then they come to the team and they're like, 'Why did this do badly?'" Roth said. "And the best thing you can do is give it back to them and be like, 'Did you enjoy reading this? Do you see yourself in this?"'

Essentialism is lame; people are born as a human. So participate. Learn to speak. Learn to read. Don't be illiterate. Don't be inmumerate. Rise above. Master yourself, and in so doing, emancipate yourself.

Use your self-awareness to improve and add to the palette of skills and abilities through your life.

It's not that hard. And I'm a programmer, so you *KNOW* I am the ultra-laziest in terms of applying time and space to problems (aka optimization!).

I get that different people have different priorities, but -- in the way that a radio transceiver is useful IF you know things like frequency, signalling mechanics, signalling protocol -- humans learn languages and use that to reason. To not develop your mind, is to throw away your greatest strength.

Just a nitpick here, but CSV, Subversion, and Perforce were in heavy use at the time and do not require checkout/lock.

Volume over time. Git is designed to allow offline work, so each working copy has it's own repository you commit to. With a monorepo that's a lot of history that isn't being used by any one agent working in only part of the code. So they uninvented Git, removing the "enable off-line work without a connection to a master repository" requirement. Which put them back at the requirements that spawned Subversion. And proceeded to re-implement Subversion. Badly.

I mean, come on. The freezers are on the Internet, no firewalls, fully accessible to anyone with a browser. Their "security" consists of rotating the admin password daily... to the current date. There are guppies out there that could gain access to these. The root cause here is willful negligence by the retailer's IT department.

The way you deal with Flock and their cameras is that you tell them you are terminating your contract with them and will be remitting payment for the remainder of the contract term. They have 30 days to remove the cameras from your property or arrange for removal. If the cameras aren't removed, you will remove them and store them at Flock's expense until Flock comes to pick them up or makes arrangements for pick-up.

Then you send them their money and, if the cameras are still there after 30 days, take 'em down and put them in storage. The cameras may belong to Flock, but it's still your property they're mounted on and Flock no longer has any right to have their stuff on your property. Don't argue with them, don't get into a debate with them, just do as you said you'd do. Sure they could take you to court, but seeing as they've received all the money they'd've been entitled to and their property is sitting there nice and undamaged waiting for them to come get it the court's going to ask why their case shouldn't be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

No, if you read it says that read performance is pretty much equal to uncompressed DRAM so you don't have to take a latency penalty.

Those "very special" use cases are actually fairly common. I routinely deal with data structures in software I write that are read-mostly: large data tables that are accessed in the inner loop (so need fast access) but whose data is updated infrequently (anywhere from minutes to days between changes, and often the changes are in batches so many changes can be applied in one operation). Being able to put them in compressed memory would free up a lot of normal memory for things that do actively change, which would speed up the application noticeably.

I don't think CRAM is a solution to the current memory price crunch, but it's certainly an interesting idea. The Redis cache software, for example, would probably benefit highly from higher capacity. And of course the same techniques can be adapted to flash/SSD drives where the memory itself isn't necessarily the speed bottleneck.