I've heard of those famed supernovae that were visible with the naked eye in the middle ages, and I've always wished I could see one too in my lifetime.
I might just be lucky before I go nova myself.
Another Canadian dunce who's drank the warm cup of PP
Large houses in hot climates don't have enough roof space to accommodate the number of panels you would need to displace grid power. Using obsolete panels that generated less power when they were new is only going to make the problem worse.
Leaning into unreliable power sources when demand is increasing is just going to make any supply issues worse.
Someone posted what they pay for electricity in California and what their buy back rate is and their rates are insane.
That has not been my experience, at all. I'm entirely against the concept of what they're doing (giving me a reason not to visit the websites that ultimately pay for the production and publication of information) but the AI summaries and links to related articles tend to be spot on what I'm looking for. Perhaps you can give me a (non-contrived) search to try that demonstrates your claim?
They don't need AI for that. Teams - and pretty much all Microsoft products - are honeypots designed to collect data.
Well, no so much "honeypots" in the case of products that employees are forced to use at their workplace: they're no honey needed to attract them and get them to give Microsoft data. If you disagree with Microsoft's privacy invasion, you lose your job.
That's the genius of Microsoft's particular brand of invasiveness: instead of convincing individual people their products are good enough to relinquish their privacy for (Facebook), or convincing a large part of the internet to let them sneak in their trackers (Google), Microsoft convinced the bean counters at most companies to install their spyware and ram it down the throats of people who need to make a living. Disgusting...
Anyway, the AI thing is just the turd on top of the shit cake.
Texas and Florida prohibit local governments from mandating rest and water breaks.
The issue with health concerns like this is that it's not like it explodes and kills you - there's really no way to say, "It was the molecule on March 13, 2026 that started cancer in your body"
You can't even do that with cigarettes - you can only make a conclusion on cause that's well supported by circumstantial evidence.
And I'm not saying you're arguing against it, but just broadly speaking
What's gonna stop obesity among Americans isn't permanent standard time. It really, REALLY isn't that.
A good start would be making healthy food that isn't 1,000,000 calories per pound, and not made of fat and sugar mixed in unknown chemicals affordable. And taxing the living shit out of junk food. And getting people to stop eating supertanker-sized servings.
Hmm. Lost the end of my sentence there somehow:
And, of course, the companies that are going out of business are also the ones who are least likely to spend time filing out a survey
The BLS monthly numbers are always off when the underlying economy is changing rapidly, because of the "birth death problem", meaning that when large numbers of companies are being created or closed (born or died), the surveys that provide the quick data are guaranteed to be quite far off because the surveys go to companies that are already establish, i.e. those that weren't just born and didn't just die. So when there's a lot of market change, they're sampling the part of the market that is changing less. This means the estimates are off, and the faster the economy is changing the further off they are.
A related issue is that the survey results are only a sample, but BLS needs to extrapolate to the entire population of businesses -- but they don't actually know how many businesses there are in the country, much less how many fit into each of the size / revenue / industry buckets. So their extrapolation necessarily involves some systematic guesswork. In normal, stable economic times good guesses are easy because it's not going to be that much different from the prior year and will likely have followed a consistent trend. But when the economy is changing rapidly, that's not true, so the guesses end up being further off the mark.
Second, it's worse when things are turning for the worse, because of something kind of like "survey fatigue", but not. The problem is that when lots of the surveyed companies are struggling, they're focused on fighting for their existence and don't have time to bother filling out voluntary government reporting forms. It's not that they're tired of surveys, but that they just don't have the time and energy to spare. And, of course, the companies that are going out of business are also the ones w
The phone thing is a red herring, because these BLS surveys are not conducted over the phone.
A new issue compounding the above is that the BLS was hit hard by DOGE cuts and early retirements. They've lost over 20% of their staff, and the loss in experience and institutional knowledge is far larger than that, because the people who were fired and the people who took the buyouts tended to be very senior. So a lot of the experience that would be used to improve the estimates has walked out the door.
Anyway, the core problem is that the economy is going into the toilet, really fast. The BLS didn't break out how much of the 911,000 fewer new jobs were added 2024 vs 2025, but I'll bet a big percentage were after Trump started bludgeoning American businesses with tariffs. Most of that pain won't really be known until the 12-month report next year, because the monthly reports are going to continue underestimating the rate of change. Well, assuming the BLS staff isn't forced to cook the books, in which case we'll just never know.
The question is simply, can an agentic LLM process do workload X for cheaper than a person? If yes, then the job is gone.
Typical AI shill answer (and the word "agentic" in the sentence is a dead giveaway too).
Wrong logic: a person's job should be gone if your "agentic" thing does the job cheaper AND at least as well.
As always, AI shills conveniently forget to factor in the quality of the work produced.
The reality of AI is, while it might be cheaper than real workers, it also enshittifies the entire world. And that's a fact.
Does it work without a Facebook account and 24/7 creepy corporate surveillance?
Oh...
The issue is: how many people did AI displace?
Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty. -- Plato
