Sorry for your loss. Dating apps are indeed garbage. If I were single, I'd be talking to every attractive person I saw at a grocery store, museum, out walking, etc. I'm an introvert and it makes me nervous AF, but I've also realized that pretty much anyone who agrees to meet for a drink is already interested, so that makes it easier. I mean I hate doing job interviews too, but it's just part of the process, not the end of the world.

Everything is derivative (or just plain copying), though generative doesn't even imply novelty. I can generate a list of the first X positive integers and that will still be generative as long as I didn't specify each one literally. It will not be novel.

I mean, the same is true of many things that are automated. Every once in a while someone dies on an escalator, but far fewer people die from riding an escalator than by falling down stairs.

I'm curious what specific problems have been "solved" by particular generative AI startups. I'm aware of AI-based tools for specific tasks, but nothing that uses LLMs to solve a problem (other than perhaps code generation).

I assume you mean because water evaporates more quickly than pads are wetted, leading to reduced functionality. This is an implementation problem, not a limitation of the concept itself. Better wetting, materials, and/or using multi-stage evaporative coolers can overcome the limit of older systems typically found in homes.

This is assuming rational behavior, which is a stretch here.

It's easy to get great efficiency when you're traveling at 25MPH, where drag is a minimal contributor. Most modern EVs can manage close to 5 mi/kWh at those speeds. Range is then just a question of battery capacity, so is the improvement in energy density, or just packing more batteries into the vehicle?

What happens if you just disable 5G on your phone?

Sure, it could be done. We could all volunteer to maintain roads and bridges too. Grab those shovels comrades!

If only we had some way to collectively pay for professionals to perform services for the common wealth. Not everyone would want to pay of course, so we'd need to have some sort of rules and penalties for those who try to avoid paying their fair share. I've got it: we can send them to Mar-A-Lago!

Unless their parents own the company, anyone in hiring has been on both sides. And within the past 10 years (at least), job seekers have had to pack their resumes with keywords in order to get through HR. Yes, people should ideally take the time to tailor their resume to the position to which they're applying, but it's a lot less effort (and usually pays off) to just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks so you can get at least a phone interview.

Also, in the time it takes to customize a resume, the position might be closed, and nobody wants to spend hours mentally reviewing their past experience to highlight parallels with the position they're applying to, especially when there's no guarantee they'll even get to submit that resume, let alone that anyone important will look at it. There's risk involved. If there's a job I really want, I'll tailor my resume. If it's a job that would be lucky to have me.... not so much.

Also, (and I can't believe I'm arguing in favor of Java devs here) if a Java dev is applying, it's likely because they're willing to do the work, not because they don't understand the difference. Many devs avoid JS because they *do* understand it, not because they don't. "I'm willing to pay you a half-million dollars to stab yourself in the eye, but it says here you've never stabbed yourself in the eye before. What makes you think you can do this job?! Idiot!"

Also worth noting that Java and JS are not mutually exclusive, and many Java projects include JS these days, so unless JS is absent from their resume, being a Java dev is probably a point in favor. Plus you mentioned C#, which is basically "Microsoft Java."

Finally, it's ironic because any dev who's been working longer than, say, 5 years has experience in technologies, frameworks, or even just parts of an API a language that are obsolete today. Everyone has had to transition to new technologies and methods, even if they stay in the same role at the same company using the same tools. Being able to pivot isn't the exception; it's the rule.

Point being, a keyword mismatch is an HR-level problem. IMO, nobody doing hiring should toss a good resume just because the experience doesn't match the requirements.

In theory, I agree that a polished resume is a good sign, and I try to present myself well on paper... but as a counterpoint, my good friend of over 30 years never put his resume in anything but plaintext format, uses keyword salad at the end, and he's also one of the best devs I know, and has always had more work than he has time for. I would be interested to learn how well a polished resume correlates with workplace success though, because I might be wasting my time.

The original announcement isn't clear, but based on the relatively low number of affected devices (there must be hundreds of thousands of these routers in use), it seems that only "savvy" users who enabled forms-based logins on the WAN port may have been affected.

Installing a private key and enabling SSH on a non-default port (as the attackers did) is likely much more secure, if the device absolutely must be accessible, or enabling the VPN -- again with public/private key pairs.

...an article worth considering from Princeton University's Zeynep Tufekci:

We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives

Since scientists began playing around with dangerous pathogens in laboratories, the world has experienced four or five pandemics, depending on how you count. One of them, the 1977 Russian flu, was almost certainly sparked by a research mishap. Some Western scientists quickly suspected the odd virus had resided in a lab freezer for a couple of decades, but they kept mostly quiet for fear of ruffling feathers.

Yet in 2020, when people started speculating that a laboratory accident might have been the spark that started the Covid-19 pandemic, they were treated like kooks and cranks. Many public health officials and prominent scientists dismissed the idea as a conspiracy theory, insisting that the virus had emerged from animals in a seafood market in Wuhan, China. And when a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance lost a grant because it was planning to conduct risky research into bat viruses with the Wuhan Institute of Virology â" research that, if conducted with lax safety standards, could have resulted in a dangerous pathogen leaking out into the world â" no fewer than 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies lined up to defend the organization.

So the Wuhan research was totally safe, and the pandemic was definitely caused by natural transmission â" it certainly seemed like consensus.

We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story. And as for that Wuhan laboratoryâ(TM)s research, the details that have since emerged show that safety precautions might have been terrifyingly lax.

Full article

The irony is that half of the insipid comments are being made by people with 5 digit UIDs.

Nobody has to trust CVEs -- that's the point. They are verifiable and typically there are proofs of concept which are easily testable. People ignore them at their own peril. (Hint, nobody in security ignores CVEs -- on the contrary, they mine them for exploits).

Per fortnight.