Agreed. If you don't know what you're doing it's hard to even ask for the right thing or know what's possible. For example: I'm currently developing a system that uses a local AI to help debug internal issues. The initial incarnations of it were very slow to start up each command; clearly, it wasn't doing proper KV caching and was having to prefill every turn; it required patches on the llama.cpp fork and our API wrapper, and also adjusting the system prompt to keep variable content at the end. But if you have no idea about KV caching issues, how do you even know something is wrong with the backend, let alone what to tell the AI to fix? You'll end up deciding you need to upgrade the GPU instead.

(That said: "lovingly handcrafted" code is a hilarious phrase that should give any developer who's ever worked on a big corporate software project the giggles, and also, these software devs are clearly people angry at knowing they're going to be let go looking for revenge by badmouthing their boss to the press)

As long as the inflation of your assets beats the inflation of your expenses, sure. People love to say "$1M isn't so much anymore anyways!" If you have $1M in the S&p500, you have 3.7% of that ($37K) invested in the energy sector. Returns on the energy sector: 61% over the 12 months ending 10/29/2026 - a $22,600 gain. That's a lot of gas money! But yeah, you have to be invested and have equity in the system. Then even the bad things have a silver lining quite often (or in this case, a minor windfall).

That's just not the case

https://thehustle.co/hs-fs/hub... 1/6 of US households now have over $1M in net worth. There are millions of us all over, living comfortably in retirement, balances go up and down but mainly up. Stick with investing and towards retirement it and your annual growtih will likely dwarf what your salary ever did. Buy and hold low cost index funds, it works.

Ultimately your tech gets outmoded, then you have to act. "Searching" is a big waste of time compared to just having your question answered.

I keep getting banned, and I don't even know why. Then log in with an old account and they ban that, for 'attempting to circumvent the first ban.' Do that a couple times and the weeklong ban because a perma-ban for "repeatedly" doing all the above.

It's such a joke, they go hyperbolic running some story that Elon Musk banned somebody from Twitter. Then they ban like crazy at the drop of a hat.

Even if AI didn't "funadamentally" advance at all for the next decade, human/AI interaction will be revolutionized by the end of that time through that use of AI alone. Every phone I get, I hate re-learning the menu structures. That is so over. From now on it should be, "hey google - in 3 seconds take a photo with the flash." Of for cars of course GOOG has Waymo. "Take me to Safeway." done. Not to say that alone would justify the AI-driven valuation of today's stock market, but even that would be a big thing. Much more important than the XeroxX Parc "miracle demos" people have been playing up for the last 50 years.

Disagree, you're incentivizing insiders to leak information. What do you think of the rash of stories along these lines? https://www.jpost.com/israel-n...

Big difference is investing is a net positive. It is possible for everybody to win, and in fact over time, most do. That' plenty of difference to affect public policy.

Escape from Pluto is much easier, and the Pluto-Charon distance is 1/20th of the Earth-Moon distance.

You are incompetent... at AI. You've never even made a good faith attempt to utilize it productively. That is the definition of willful ignorance.

By definition, because it's vibe-journalism pandering to the fad-trend of the moment.

That article is in production for next week, I'm sure.

Thank god for that. It was hard enough to learn 9 (now 8) planets at school. Can you imagine having to learn all the names if the hydrostatic equilibrium definition held?

Since when does science work by a standard of "what is easy for children to memorize lists of"? Do we say "There are 8 rivers in the world, and all others are dwarf rivers, which really aren't rivers" to make it easier on kids? Do we say "There are 8 bones in the human body, and all others are dwarf bones, which don't really count as bones"?

That's not how science works. Science is focused on practical distinctions about how things developed and their physical properties relative to each other. Hydrostatic equilibrium is a very practical definition. The process of undergoing relaxation induces metamorphism and releases heat, altering bodies. You go to non-equilibrium bodies if you want to study the primordial makeup of our solar system. You go to equilibrium bodies if you want to study tectonics, volcanism, non-primordial chemistry, and search for past or present life. The boundary could not be more meaningful. Yes, there is a bit of fuzz between equilibrium and non-equilibrium, but the same applies to pretty much all scientific fields.

Supporters of the IAU definition (which I should add was a deeply biased sample, in that it looked like they were headed toward no definition or a hydrostatic equilibrium definition, so most supporters of that left, but the people trying to switch it to an orbit-clearing definition stayed) will argue that it's cleared if the remaining objects are trivial transients or in orbital resonance. But that's not what the IAU definition says. Also they'll point to the Stern-Levison parameter, but (A) that was based on the ability to scatter today's distribution of asteroids, not the primordial distribution, which included outright planetissimals**; and (B) Mars didn't even clear it's own orbit, Jupiter did. Also, in the paper that introduced the Stern-Levison parameter, they argued for a better definition where you combine adjectives and nouns (each with specific implications about the body) as needed to describe its size, composition, etc.

But the OP's point stands, in that it's stupid to say that something is a "dwarf planet", yet not a planet. It's like saying dwarf stars aren't stars or dwarf galaxies aren't galaxies or whatnot. An adjective-noun is almost always a noun, that's how language works. In the cases where an adjective-noun isn't a noun - say, "shooting star" or "slow worm" or whatnot - we treat these as scientifically erroneous colloquialisms, and formalize corrected scientific terminology. We don't do literally the opposite and have science codify misleading language.

Speak for yourself, Pluto is fascinating. Tectonically active. Cryovolcanism so abundant it appears to have formed large mountains by the merger of individual domes. A gigantic scar exposing its mantle, which over time roils in massive convection cells, pockmarked in sublimation pits. Mountains drifting like icebergs and accumulating on the shore. Penetentes (sublimation ice spikes), the size of large hills. A multilayer blue atmosphere, in which organic chemistry occurs, depositing not just organic matter onto its own surface, but that of its moon as well. Active glaciation. A probable subsurface ocean, in contact with rock. Conditions suggesting it was habitable when it formed.

IMHO, it's way more interesting than a number of recognized planets.

(Also, I'm confused by your response. This isn't about the moon, and the moon has no atmosphere for flying)